The Second Coming of Messiah Ben-David

The common perception is that only people who think Jesus is The Messiah think He has two advents, that He was born thousands of years before He actually conquerors Israel's enemies and establishes His Kingdom on Earth.  And that the only thing you'll find in Rabbinic or other non-Christian Jewish traditions that could be adapted to fit the Christian view is the dual Messiah concept, usually with Messiah ben Joseph as the first advent.

However there is an interesting over looked collection of Jewish traditions about a Messiah Ben-David named Menahem.

Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 2:4 5a says.

A Jew was ploughing and his cow was lowing as he went.

An Arab who passed by heard it, and said: "Son of the Jews, release your cow and abandon your plough, for the

Temple has been destroyed."

The ox lowed again, and the Arab said: "Son of the Jews, tie up your cow and tie up your plough, for King Messiah

has been born."

The Jew asked: "What is his name?"

The other answered: "Menahem."

The Jew asked: "What is his father's name?"

The other answered: "Hezekiah."

The Jew asked: "Where is he from?"

The other answered: "From the dwelling place of the King, Bethlehem in Judah."

The Jew sold his cow and his plough and became a seller of infants' swaddling clothes.

He went in and out of one town after another until he came to that town, and all the women bought from him, but

Menahem's mother did not buy.

He heard the women say: "Mother of Menahem, mother of Menahem, come and buy for your son!"

She told him: "I should like to strangle my son Menahem, for on the day he was born, the Temple was

destroyed."

He told her: "We are sure that just as he marked its destruction, so he shall build it once more."

She said: "I have no money."

He said: "No matter, come and buy, and if you have no money today, after some days I shall come and collect it."

After some days, he came back to the town, and asked her: "How is the child?"

She said: "After you saw me, a mighty wind came and snatched him out of my hands."

The Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 98b says

Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, Because Menahem ['the comforter'], that would relieve my soul, The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Lamentations 1:16 is the Bible verse being quoted to support Menahem being a potential name for The Messiah.  Because the name is often said to mean "Comforter" this ought to make Christians think of John's Gospel, where it's used as a title of The Holy Spirit, we see with Mani, Muhammad and Bahai that it is common for heretics to twist that refer to a future prophesied figure.  

But the Hebrew word for Comforter is Nachom, Menahem comes from putting a Mem at the beginning as a prefix, which makes it mean "from the Comforter".  The reference to Isaiah 53:4 is actually a different proposed name of the Messiah, it shows how the early Rabbis did consider that Messianic. Actually John 14:16 has been translated as saying "Another Comforter" implying The Comforter is a title of Jesus also. In fact that same Greek word is the one translated Advocate when Jesus is called our Advocate in 1 John 2:1.

I wonder if this personage is in any way based on Menahem ben Judah of Josephus.  Being born the day The Temple was destroyed wouldn't fit.  But his ancestor Judas the Galilean there is good reason to suspect was the same person as Judas ben Hezekiah who was also a Galilean.

Certain fringe theorists and Preterists make much of how the Yossipon seems to place Agrippa and Monobaz as being killed about three and a half years before The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD,  tying into Daniel 9 and 12.  Josephus has both of them alive after this, but places the execution of Menahem about this time.

Even more complicated then the Menahem ben Hezekiah tradition is the Menahem ben Ammiel tradition, the core of which is the Sefer Zerubabel.  An English translation can be read online here.  Where Messiah Ben-Joseph is Nehemiah Ben Hushiel and Messiah Ben-David is Menahem ben Ammiel.

This text began to form in the early 7th Century in the time of Nehemiah ben Hushiel.  It entered it's final from in the 11th century, there are many contradictions in it, and between it's different texts.

In this version he's taken by a whirlwind not to heaven but to Rome (spiritually called Nineveh) where he is being held prisoner till the time of the end.

His genealogy is curious, first why is he the son of Ammiel?  Christians concerned that the Antichrist might be of Dan and claim to be the Messiah could take note that Ammiel was the spy representing Dan in Number 13:12.  But I find it more interesting that Ammiel was the name of the father of Bathsheba.  Perhaps it is telling us cryptically which wife of David the author thought would produce The Messiah?  Which for Christians is consistent with both Matthew and Luke's genealogies.

The mother of Menahem ben Ammiel is a very surprisingly interesting character in this story.  Her name is Hefzibah/Hephzibah.  Which is interesting because that was the name of the wife of King Hezekiah and mother of King Manasseh.  And this Menahem does call himself the son of Hezekiah at one point.  And Manasseh was held captive in Babylon for awhile.  2 Chronicles but not 2 Kings records that he did repent of his sins.  But his sins included placing Idols in The Temple, which makes him a possible type of The Antichrist.  She may of course have borne Hezekiah other sons.

Hephzibah is also a poetic name for Israel in Isaiah 62:4.  So perhaps Christians should see Hephzibah as a name for the woman of Revelation 12?

But she is also called the Wife of Nathan the Prophet in the translation I linked to above.  In a Bate Midrashot 2:504, Hefzibah is called the wife of Nathan The Prophet son of David and the mother of Menahem son of Ammiel, son of David.  The Zohar 3:17b says

“You who bring good tidings to Zion” is Hephzibah, the wife of Nathan son of David, who is the mother of Messiah, Menachem son of Amiel. She shall go out and bring the tidings . . .”

So the confusion perhaps comes largely from a confusion of Nathan the Prophet with Nathan the son of Bathsheba.  So this is a Jewish text hostile to Christianity cryptically hinting at The Messiah Ben David possibly coming from Nathan.  I've argued before why you can get that conclusion from The Hebrew Scriptures alone.

Contradictions exist on when Menahem ben Ammiel was born, some imply when the First Temple was destroyed modifying the Talmudic tradition.  But the only statement I noticed on it in the translation I read said he was born during the reign of King David.

Could Nathan Ben David have had a son born that early?   As I argued before Nathan was older then Solomon, and since Rehoboam was 41 when he began to reign and Solomon reigned only 40 years he was born to Solomon during the reign of David.

Luke 3 lists the Son of Nathan as Mattatha, and the son of Mattatha as Menan.  Menan is distinct from but has a similarity to Menahem (in the Septuagint Menahem ben Gadi King of Israel is rendered Manaem, and as Manaen by Aquila of Sinope).  Manaen of Acts 13:1 is also considered a Greek form of this Hebrew name.  Luke's Hellenizing the name differently these two occasions could come from him learning them from different sources. 

It's possible Mattatha was not Nathan's only or even firstborn son.

I have argued that Heli is the father of Mary in Luke's genealogy.  In expanding on that I argued that there may be other places where Luke's genealogy is really going through a father in law, but still Joseph is the only male named who's not a biological ancestor of Jesus.  Particularly my belief regarding the additional Cainan/Kenen of Luke 3's overlap with Genesis 11 is that Kenen was an older son of Arphaxad and that Selah married Kenen's daughter, since even Leviticus 18 does not forbid uncle/niece marriage.  So maybe Luke is recording a similar thing in 3:31, maybe Menan and Mattatha were both sons of Nathan and Menan married his niece, a daughter of Mattatha?

So it seems the only thing Rabbinic Jews are completely uncomfortable with (besides Divinity) is Messiah Ben-David dying, yet they know a Messiah will die and give that role to Ben-Joseph.  But the main Bible passage they cite as being about Ben-Joseph's death is Zechariah 12, which I've discussed before showing how even Jewish translations make it pretty clear the one pierced is of the house of David.

How could Jesus be the Seed of Abraham without a Human Father?

I was watching on Youtube a few days ago a debate between David Wood and a Muslim named Zakir Hussain about Isaac or Ishmael.  In it Zakir Hussain criticizes the Christian view of how Jesus relates to the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12 and 15 by saying Jesus couldn't be the Seed of Abraham without a human father (Muslims do believe in The Virgin Birth) since Seed strictly speaking refer to pater-lineal descent.

While normally Seed refers to pater-lineal ancestry being most literally a Hebrew word for Semen/Sperm.  The very beginning of Messianic Prophecy from the Christian POV at least is Genesis 3:15 making a very abnormal reference to "The Seed of the Woman".

I could also say the Koran does call Jesus the Messiah (Al-Maish) of Israel, and He couldn't have been that without being of the Seed of David.  So he is not actually helping the Muslim case.

Zakir Hussain did make one comment during the debate about the Y-Chromosome, implying he could accept that as an acceptable literal interpretation of what Seed refers to.

Which leads me to bring up something I thought about a long time ago, but was hesitant to go public with it precisely because a statement in the Koran played a role in my coming up with it.  But since a Muslim broached the issue.

Sura 3 verse 36.

And when she was delivered she said: My Lord! Lo! I am delivered of a female - Allah knew best of what she was delivered - the male is not as the female; and lo! I have named her Mary, and lo! I crave Thy protection for her and for her offspring from Satan the outcast.

The Koran defines Mary the mother of Jesus as inter-sex.  Well, the terminology it uses is actually exactly the modern politically correct terminology for a Trans Man, saying she was mistakenly labeled the wrong gender at birth based on how she looked.  But the intent was to say Mary internally has some biological maleness to her and that is how she could give birth as a Virgin.  This is the Islamic explanation for how the Virgin Birth was possible without Jesus being Divine.

There are examples of women being born with a Y-Chromosome.  Often these women aren't able to reproduce but there is at least one documented exception to that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
[Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development]

Since the discovery of modern DNA and how the Y-Chromosome works, the traditional Christian view of how Jesus could be male even though his only Biological parent was a Female has been that God supernaturally gave Jesus a distinct Y-Chromosome.  Especially with the idea related to genetic memory theory that the Y-Chromosome carries a memory of the first Man, naturally it became popular to see that as scientific confirmation of Original Sin.

But I do not hold the Catholic or Calvinist view of original Sin which both derive from Augustine.  To me it is just a genetic Pre-Disposition to Sin.  Paul said in Hebrews 2:18 that Jesus was tempted by all the same Temptations we are.  So I don't think Jesus was born without that pre-disposition, he simply was alone in being able to overcome it.

So I'm very open to the possibility that Mary was inter-sex and Jesus was able to through her carry the Y-Chromosome of David and Abraham and Adam.  And maybe that is the full explanation of what the Seed of The Woman means.

But regardless of my willingness to think the Koran might have been onto something there.  I firmly believe Jesus was The Son of God, The Word made Flesh.  And I have before argued for the Deity of The Messiah from The TNAK.

The Biblical basis for this theory is the doctrine of the Seed of the Woman.

This same debate also mentioned Isaiah 53.  Zakir Hussain objected to the Christian view of this being Jesus since it refers to him having Seed in verse 10.  David Wood responded that Christians are spiritually of Jesus Seed.  And the Zakir said in the Hebrew it's Zerah so can only mean physical.

A word having a literal meaning does not mean a spiritual or symbolic application is impossible.  If you're gonna take that logic there is no need to cite the Hebrew, the literal meaning of Seed is more strict then Zerah, we are being figurative when we use it of Sperm in modern English, literally it refers only to plant seeds.

The plain reading is that people become His seed after His Resurrection.  If Muslims believe (like I do) biological reproduction will go on after the Resurrection then they can't rule out that Jesus could literally fulfill that.  It is an error BTW that the Koran teaches Jesus didn't die, it actually clearly says Jesus did die.

If you're going to agree with the common view of Rabbinic Jews that the Servant is not an individual then you're not taking it literally at all and can't object to a non-literal interpretation of the Seed.

For the record there are a few things in that debate I'm willing to agree with Zakir Hussain over David on.  I plan to do a post or two on Ishmael and Firstborn Inheritance in the near future.  

But his insistence that begotten can be read into Genesis 22:2 is not supported by any Hebrew text I know.  And the abuse of what Genesis 21 says to make it sound like Hagar carried Ishmael not her luggage on her shoulder just made me laugh.

And the Genealogies of Jesus came up.  I have addressed Luke being Mary's genealogy before.

Solomon was the youngest son of Bathsheba

Chuck Missler and others keep referring to Solomon as the oldest surviving son of Bathsheba, and Nathan as the second.

All three verses that list the sons of David and Bathsheba list Solomon as the last of the four and Nathan third.  2 Samuel 5:14, 1 Chronicles 3:5 and 1 Chronicles 14:4.

"And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel:"

Also I don't believe the four listed here are only the "surviving" ones, I think even the one that died at birth was given a name, and that name was Shimea.

Among the things said by Critics to attack the idea that Jesus had any claim to the Throne of David from Luke's genealogy is that the Throne could only be inherited through Solomon.  Solomon is relevant to II Samuel 7 because he is the near fulfillment, but nothing in Scripture says the Messiah must be descended from Solomon. On top of that go back to the account of the division of The Kingdom in I Kings 11.  It says Solomon's sons will never rule a United Kingdom, only Judah.  The Messiah will rule all of Israel.  Meanwhile Zachariah 12:12 makes a reference to the House of Nathan that is interesting.  And 2 Kings 23:11 has a mysterious reference to a "Chamber of Nathan-Melech" Melech meaning King.

Arguing for the Divinity of The Messiah

The thought has occasionally entered my mind, of a Jewish person possibly hypothetically saying the following during a debate with a Christian.

"Maybe, hypothetically, a Christian could convince me (but it wouldn't be easy) of the idea of The Messiah, having two advents where he doesn't do any of the Kingly stuff until the second coming. Or him suffering and dying as an offering for Sin and then being Resurrected, and maybe even Born of a Virgin. And that maybe Jesus/Yeshua was that. But what I could never accept is the idea of The Messiah being the Son of God, or God manifesting as a Human. It's inherently not Monotheistic, it's Pagan like the demigods of Greek mythology or the Avatars of Vishnu in Hinduism."

Now I haven't encountered a Jewish person willing to say that, or heard of one. But I think it's an important aspect to look at. I think it's a good idea here to set aside all the other disagreements in how Christians (Jew and Gentile) and Non-Christian Jews interpret Messianic Prophecy and look chiefly at what was most offensive to the Scribes and Pharisees of Yeshua's own day. The idea of God being made Flesh.

So I've felt moved by The Holy Spirit to try and help prepare fellow believers for such a discussion. Below I'll be speaking as if talking to Jews directly, so feel free to Copy/Paste my arguments, I don't Copyright any of these dissertations.

I'll be basing all of this on only the Masoretic Hebrew Text, no Septuagint or Hellenistic apocryphal writings. And nothing from Christian translations Jews would object to. I'll be using this linked below Translation made by Jews. Rather then my usual KJV defaulting.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

The objection clearly isn't that it's something God can't do. Besides simply saying God can do anything, even Jewish interpretations of Scripture agree that "The Angel of The LORD" or "The Angel of God" is God taking a physical tangible Human looking form. The Word (Dabar in Hebrew) could be viewed that way also, like in Genesis 15 where the Dabar performs the Covenant ritual all on his own. The Angel who announces the conception of Samson is an example, and the Captain of The Host who appears to Joshua before The Battle of Jericho. Anytime an Angel accepts Worship and yet isn't evil or fallen that's clearly not an ordinary Angel but God Himself.

The very name of Israel comes from when Jacob wrestled with God. And in Genesis 18 everyone agrees the leader of the three Angels there is God himself talking with Abraham. And He actually eats food with Abraham and Sarah. That's a pretty physical tangible Human like form, I'd argue incarnating as a Human isn't that much greater a leap.

But again, it's not about what God can do but what he's willing to. Is actually becoming a Human simply to far beneath him? Remember God made Adam in his own Image, Genesis 1:26. So really why assume incarnating as a Human is something he'd never do when Adam was modeled after himself to begin with?

Then there is the Hebrew word Go'el. That word is variously translated Kinsman, Redeemer, and Avenger/Revenger. The word means all of those things. It maybe does not necessarily literally have to mean a biological relative every time it's used, but the Kinsman aspect is important to it's function in the Mosaic Law. And is vital to understanding the Book of Ruth, where Boaz is the Kinsman Redeemer, being a near male relative of Naomi and Ruth's late husband.

The word is used of God in Isaiah 41:14 and 43:14 "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I help thee, saith the LORD, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." Also in 44:6 and 24. And 47:4, 48:17, 49:7 and 26 and 54:5. And other Isaiah examples, also Jeremiah 50:34

Job said in 19:25 "But as for me, I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He will witness at the last upon the dust". Also Psalms 19:14 and 78:35.

What about the Preexistence of The Messiah?

Micah 5 "out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days." and Isaiah 9:5 "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us". Both verses even in Jewish translations imply a Preexistence.

Rapheal Patai is a Jewish scholar who agrees to the Preexistence of The Messiah "The concept of the preexistence of The Messiah accords with the general Talmudic view which holds that "The Holy One, blessed be He, prepares the remedy before the wound"", (The Messiah Texts pp. 16-17). Preexistence alone doesn't prove Divinity, but it makes him very special. Because while some cults believe we all had a preexistence like the Mormons, that view is entirely UnBiblical, from Genesis 2 "Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The Soul and Spirit are created at the same time The Body is.

The Messiah is David's Son/Descendant. Yet David calls him lord in Psalm 110 "The LORD saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'" Psalm 2 is also interesting. The Messiah appears to be relating how "the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession."

Psalm 45 is considered a Messianic Psalm, it explicitly refers to the King as God in verse 8, and says in verse 11 to Worship him.

The clincher however I believe is to look at Ezekiel 40-48's description of the coming Messianic Kingdom. How come this in depth description mentions no Palace where The Messiah Ben-David rules from? A great deal of the point of the Messianic Age is to fulfill the Davidic promise from II Samuel 7, that a Son of David would sit on David's Throne forever. And this promise is inherently linked to Jerusalem.

And yet Ezekiel in his in-depth description of The Messianic future geography and architecture of Israel, Jerusalem and The Temple mentions no dwelling place for The Messiah. The only Throne mentioned is in Ezekiel 43:7 in the Holy of Holies, no longer separated from The Holy Place by the Veil. Where The LORD tells Ezekiel "this is the place of My throne, and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever; and the house of Israel shall no more defile My holy name".

 Here the LORD is saying he himself will rule. How can this be reconciled with the Davidic Promise? Clearly the Throne of David and the Throne of God have become the same Throne. And therefor God must incarnate as The Son of David, Son of Abraham, Son of Adam.

Ezekiel 40-48 does have references to a "Prince" (Nasi in the Hebrew). If the word for Prince here had been Sar or Nagyid then it could make sense to say he's The Messiah, but Nasi isn't a royal term, and could more accurately be translated President.  Ezekiel 34:23&24 and 37:24:25 explain that the Nasi is David himself Resurrected, not his Son who's The Messiah.

The LORD also enters through the Eastern Gate, just as The Messiah is supposed to do.

Add on top of that some interesting material from Zechariah 12-14. In 12:17 "In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that stumbleth among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as a godlike being, as the angel of the LORD before them."

 That verse is definitely translated differently in Christian translations, but even the way it's translated here is still pretty compelling. Also 14:9 "And the LORD shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one." And in verse 16 "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations that came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles."

Genesis 3:15's Seed of the Woman is viewed by Jews as being Humanity, and unlike many Christians I'm not going to object to that. It's relevance here is this crushing the head of the Serpent theme does come up again in the Hebrew Bible.  Psalms 74:12-14, 89:10, 91:13, Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 51:9.  And in those passages it is The LORD that crushes the heads of serpents.

In Genesis 3:20 Adam names the Woman Eve because she is " the mother of all living".  Deuteronomy 5:26 calls YHWH the "Living God".  Mean Eve through one of her many daughter has to become the Mother of God.

Now as far as the comparison to Polytheistic Pagan concepts go. The demigods of Greek mythology were half-man/half-god. Christians view Yeshua as All-Man and All-God. And he was born of a Virgin, no weird Zeus turning into an animal or a golden shower to seduce and/or rape a girl.

The Avatars of Vishnu comparison is, I'll admit, a more valid one. Though I'd like to point out it's unclear how long people in India even understood the concept as they do now, even the Mahabharata is much younger then many casual references say it is, being post Alexander. Modern Hinduism is mostly the result of British Colonialism.

Many Scholars are probably more qualified to explain all the distinctions then I am. The key one I feel however is the Uniqueness. God only did this once, Yeshua will have a Second Coming, but it'll be the same Body he had before, still carrying the Wounds he received on The Cross. I know some bizarre cults and theorists out there try to argue for a Rebirth by abusing Revelation 12, but all serious scholars of Revelation know that that is a symbolic recap of History. So there are no repeated incarnations every age like what Vishu does.

I hope the above discussion has been revealing and insightful.