Post by cgpb on Jan 15, 2014 9:04:01 GMT -8
ISAIAH 7:14 - RESOLVED
One of the objections that Jews raise towards Christians, is the verse found in the book of Isaiah 7:14. Which says
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
Christians claim this to be Messianic prophecy regarding the virgin birth of Jesus. Jews however accuse Christians of mistranslating the verse from the Hebrew text.
The Jewish objections to Isaiah 7:14 are:
a. It has nothing to do with Jesus, because it has to do with a crisis 700 years before Jesus was born
b. That it does not prophesy a virgin birth because it doesn’t use the Hebrew word for virgin, it uses another word – namely almah
In resolving this issue, the aspects we need to examine are:
1. The events happening at the time in which Isaiah spoke this prophecy
2. Understanding how the language of prophecy works
3. The meaning and application of the word almah
4. Examining the available ancient manuscripts.
In conjunction with this we need to take the following stance:
That we trust that there is reason, purpose, precision and even mystery behind every word God speaks. Because Isaiah tells us in 55:8
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”declares the LORD.”
God doesn’t speak carelessly, in ignorance nor on a linear level like people. His words are often multidimensional and subject to eternal purposes. And that we don’t apply our 21st century mindset to the way things were 2,800 years ago in ancient Israel.
1. Now let’s briefly examine the events surrounding the time when this prophecy was spoken.
It says:
“When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.”(Isaiah 7:1-2)
Note here that the house of David is specifically identified, could there be something significant about this, a crisis for the line of David - yes as we shall see.
At this point it’s important to bring up that the sin of a land brings foreign invasions upon it, and King Ahaz of Judah was a godless and faithless king in the line of David. 2 Chr. 28.5 tells us that God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria and of the king of Israel because he began his reign with idolatry.
And This is why the heart of Ahaz’ and his people was moved with fear as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind. Their fright was caused by the sense of guilt and the weakness of their faith. They had made God their enemy, and therefore their fears tyrannized over them:
3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.”
So what we have here is a plot where the king of Syria (Aram) and the king of Israel are trying to get rid of Ahaz and overthrow the Davidic dynasty, the one to whom the messianic promises have come and replace it with someone they will put in. So this was an attack on the house of David and therefore on the messianic promises.
The orders and directions God gave Isaiah to go and encourage Ahaz in his distress were not for his own sake, as he deserved to hear nothing from God but words of terror, but because he was a son of David and king of Judah, God was showing kindness to him for his father’s sake.
God also ordered Isaiah to take his little son with him, because he carried a sermon in his name.
Shear-jashub—prophetically meaning “A remnant shall return”.
And in the following verses, Isaiah gives God’s words of comfort.
7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
“‘It will not take place,
it will not happen,
for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.’”
God then goes on to tell Ahaz to ask for a sign, apparently a supernatural sign because he tells him to ask whatever he wants, whether it be in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
But Ahaz rudely refuses this gracious offer as he replies:
“I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.”
Now the real reason why Ahaz would not ask for a sign was because he wasn’t in right standing before God. Ahaz didn’t love or trust God and he had other plans. His plan was to take money and hire the pagan and enemy king of Assyria and he would fight against the king of Syria and against Ephraim northern Israel and that’s how he reasoned he was going to get free. So he pretends a pious reason I will not tempt the Lord; as if it would be tempting God to do that which God himself invited and directed him to do. Secret disloyalty to God is often disguised by making a good outward appearance in order to deceive.
So basically what Ahaz is saying here is without really saying it is:
“I’m not going to ask for a miraculous sign because I am not in a right relationship with God and I’m not putting my trust in God and I don’t want to put my trust in God as I have other plans, I’m depending upon the Assyrians, their forces, and their gods, for help. So no I don’t want to put the Lord to the test.”
Then the prophet Isaiah rebukes him and his court, him and the house of David, the whole royal family, for their contempt of prophecy, and the little value they had for divine revelation.
For he says:
“Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also”?
However the unbelief of man shall not make the promise of God of no effect:
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign:
So what was the sign? It says “a virgin (almah) will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”
He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”
After the comfortable promises made to Ahaz as a branch of the house of David, the rest of chapter 7 deals with the coming judgment, so deliverance is coming, for the sake of David and the covenant, yet there are coming judgments as his iniquity shall be chastened with the rod, and his sin with stripes.
Then in chapter 8 verses 1-4 something interesting happens. It seems that that things that the Emmanuel prophecy were supposed to do are now taken over by the prophecy about Maher – Shalah – Hash – Baz which means quick loot fast plunder, implying that the Assyrian army should come upon them with great speed and make great spoil.
Then there is one more reference to the name Immanuel in chapter 8 verse 8:
“Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, Immanuel!”
After this Immanuel disappears and there is no more reference to Him after that. It appears that any true sense of fulfillment of this prophecy is gone from us.
So the Jew now needs to be in a position to answer: Who is this Immanuel, and who was he born to? Because after Ahaz , there were only 2 more godly kings in the Davidic line. Hezekiah and Josiah and their names don’t mean Immanuel or (God is with us).
2. This now brings us to 2 important points regarding understanding how the language of prophecy works:
a. Prophecy is dimensional
b. Many prophecies are gradually revealed and gradually fulfilled
a. Many times when God speaks a prophecy it is dimensional. This means that it’s words are applicable to different people at different times for different reasons. The reason is because prophecy is God’s truth and truth isn’t confined to a certain period or person in history but is eternal. So in this case even though God spoke to Ahaz through Isaiah, it doesn’t mean that the prophecy was exclusively applicable only for him and his situation, but could also apply to someone else at a much later date.
An example of how dimensional prophecy operates is found in Genesis 28:13-15
13 There above it stood the LORD, and he said: “I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. 14 Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. 15 I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”
On a first reading of this passage, we understand that God is probably prophesying to Jacob about the deliverance of the Israelites through Moses into the promised land. However the same prophecy could have been applied 4.000 years after to the Jews in the Diaspora, just before Israel became a nation in May 14 1948. Now if a Jewish Rabbi had used this scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the 20th century to allude to the rebirth of Israel as a nation, I’m pretty sure that no Jew would have a problem with this, nor would they start getting all scholastical about its interpretation.
Likewise the same prophecy could also be applied on an eternal scale to mean that God will never abandon Israel or His people because of the Covenant He has made with them. So the question is, why does the Jew have a problem when Matthew in chapter 1:23 applies this same prophetic truth process to Isaiah 7:14? Has God changed?
b. Many Prophecies have their original application at a time but their fulfillments go beyond their day. They are gradually revealed and gradually fulfilled.
One example is found in Genesis 49:10 when Jacob prophesies the destiny of Joseph’s son’s. Regarding his son Judah. He says “The scepter will not depart from Judah”. Now this prophesy had application then, but it didn’t reach its initial fulfillment until over 400 years later in David and has its ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah.
In the case of the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy, it had some application to king Ahaz in which it spoke of a birth, but we don’t know much about that birth, but the best interpretation would be that I am going to replace you godless Ahaz with someone righteous , there’s going to be a supernatural birth and someone to take your place in the line of David , it is a prophecy to the house of David because the house of David is singled out uniquely here and is spoken to in the plural.
Back then it was a most encouraging prophecy to the house of David (and to them, under that title,) it was an assurance that God would not cast them off. Ephraim did indeed envy Judah and sought the ruin of that kingdom, but could not prevail; for the scepter should never depart from Judah till the coming of Shiloh.
But the prophecy reaches its fulfillment 700 years later and its translation would be that:
God of his good will to Israel and to the house of David has given a sign in a glorious manner that you are not forsaken of your God. Of your nation, of your family, the Messiah has been born and you cannot be destroyed while that blessing is in you. You have been often told that he should be born among you, I am now further to tell you that he has been born of a virgin, which signifies both the divine power and the divine purity with which has been brought into the world,—that he shall be a extraordinary person, for he shall not be born in the ordinary way,—and that he shall be a holy thing, not stained with the common pollutions of the human nature, therefore incontestably fit to have the throne of his father David.
And Matthew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was brought to record this prophecy of Isaiah as having reached its fulfillment at a later date through the virgin birth of Mary.
3. This now brings us to the 2nd Jewish objection that it does not prophesy a virgin birth because It doesn’t use the Hebrew word for virgin, it uses another word namely almah.
Now does Almah in itself mean virgin, No. but can it yes it can because when translated it means a "young maiden" who is of age to marry, yet is not married. In particular it refers to a young woman coming into puberty and has to do with youthfulness not virginity.
The word almah in the singular appears 4 times in the Hebrew bible:
i. Gen 24:43,(speaking of Rebekah),
ii. Exodus 2:8 (speaking of Moses’ sister),
iii. Proverbs 30:19 (speaking of the way of a man with a young woman
iv. Isaiah 7:14 (as we saw of Immanuel’s mother)
Let’s examine these verses
i. Genesis 24:43
“Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;”
This is in reference to Abraham’s chief servant relaying to Rebeka’s family the sign that God had given him success in choosing a wife for his master Abraham’s son Isaac. We know Rebekah was a virgin not only because we reason so because of Abraham’s right standing with God and given the ethical standards of the time but it explicitly says so several verses before in the same chapter.
16 The woman was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had ever slept with her. (Genesis 24:16).
ii. Exodus 2:8
Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go ahead." So the girl (almah) went and called the child's mother.”
“The girl” in this passage is Miriam, the sister of Moses. She is referred to with the Hebrew almah, and both Jewish commentators and the historian Josephus speak of her as being only 10 or 12 years of age. Although women did marry early in the Biblical period, it doesn't seem logical to believe she was anything but a virgin at this point in the narrative.
iii. Proverbs 30:19
There are 3 things that are too amazing for me,
4 that I do not understand:
the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a young woman.
It is evident in all these instances where the term almah is used, it means a young, unmarried woman. Almah is never used in the Hebrew Scriptures to describe a young woman who is married at that time. Also given the ethical Jewish standards of that time, we reason she is a virgin.
In fact one does not need to go back that far. One just has to go back 100 years ago when women of marriageable age in western countries were expected to be chaste let alone going back 2700 years ago in Ancient Israel. If a Jew argues this fact, then he is violating the integrity of his own Bible and the Jewish ethical standards expected at that time and is in essence implying then that it was the norm for young Jewish girls of marriageable to be promiscuous. Therefore it is absolutely foolish to presume that almah doesn’t imply virgin.
Many Jews argue that Isaiah should have used the name betulah if he meant virgin in itself.
The Hebrew word betulah however, unless it is in a legal context having to do with virginity, does not mean virgin it means maiden and the context of the aspect of womanhood it is referring to has to be explained.When the bible talks about young men and young women, it talks about young men and betulot, not young men and virgins, but young men and young women.
The Hebrew scriptures speak of two types of betulot (virgins). One is the true virgin. The other is the betrothed virgin (betulah m'orashah). We see an example of this in Deuteronomy 22, where the virgin in a state of betrothal is referred to as the man’s isha, or wife since the state of betrothal was considered just as serious and sacred as the married state. This seems to argue against betulah having the singular meaning of “virgin.”
In Genesis 24:15-16 Rebekah is referred to with the term betulah, but note carefully that this is immediately followed with the phrase, “neither had any man known her.” If betulah unquestionably was understood to mean “virgin,” then why would it have been necessary to add, “neither had any man known her?”
" And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up." (Genesis 24:15-16)
Joel 1:8 uses the word betulah in a context which does not convey the usual meaning of virginity:
"Mourn like a virgin (betulah) in sackcloth, grieving for the husband of her youth."
What is interesting here is that the verse uses the Hebrew ba’al in reference to the husband, and in the Hebrew Scriptures ba’al never refers to a betrothed man, only a married man. This together with the simile “like a virgin” argues that the context of betulah here refers to a married woman.
So we can see that there are problems defending the accusation that the use of almah as “virgin” is a Christian mistranslation. It also seems that the argument that the prophet Isaiah would have used betulah if he was referring to a virgin, does not hold up well to scrutiny. In fact, one could argue that if Isaiah had used the word betulah, then critics might have had much more ammunition to argue that he is not referring to a miraculous, virgin birth.
Arguing over the choice of word is pointless as the essence is the same. It would be just as foolish as arguing today over the word bachelor , unmarried man, single man and getting all scholastical about whether it means a man who was never married, someone who was once married and now divorced , someone who was once married but now widowed, or someone who is currently in a relationship but not married or whatever. Regardless of any of these , the essence is the same. Bachelor, single, unmarried, widow all means a man who is currently not married.
The truth is that when someone is not open to accept truth, they retaliate and concern themselves with the scholasticism of word interpretation rather than with the essence of truth and when people get so tied up in the semantics of things, they miss the essence.
4. We now come to the last aspect of examining this issue known as TEXTUAL CRITICISM
The process of textual criticism is taking the available ancient manuscripts regardless of the language they are in (Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) and comparing them in order to try and determine the original reading of a certain passage. We shall look at 3 versions of the text. The Masoretic, the Isaiah scroll from the dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint.
a. Masoretic Hebrew text - The Old Testament that we use today is translated from what is called the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes were Jewish scholars who between 500 and 950 A.D gave the Old Testament the form that we use today. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947, the oldest Hebrew text of the Old Testament was the Masoretic Aleppo Codex which dates to A.D. 935.
b. The Great Isaiah scroll from the Dead sea scrolls is the oldest complete copy of the Book of Isaiah known. It dates between 100 B.C – 70 A.D so it is about 2,000 years old. So this manuscript predates the masoretic text by about 1.000years.
c. The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew bible into Greek. It was translated by ancient jewish rabbis. It is dated about 250 years before Jesus Christ so its about 2.000 years old. It can be argued that a complete Hebrew text from which this Greek translation would be derived must have existed prior to the third century B.C.
We can reason that the older a text is, then it is more likely to be closer and more accurate to the original. Therefore the Dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint would be more reliable sources. Also it would be more trustworthy to trust a text compiled by Jews living 100’s of years before Jesus was even born rather than a text compiled by Jews living 900 years after Christianity spread as a religion.
When we compare Isaiah 7:14 in these manuscripts we notice 3 differences.
The differences are in:
a. The name of God used
b. The word used to denote a virgin
c. The pronoun used regarding who called the child’s name Emanuel
d. and in The name Immanuel itself
The King James Version reads:
“Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emanu - El.”
Masoretic Hebrew text
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign; behold, a maiden shall conceive, and bear a son, and she /(or) you will call his name Immanuel.”
Isaiah scroll
“Therefore YHWH himself will give you a sign; behold, a maiden shall conceive, and bear a son, and he will call his name Emanuel.”
Septuagint
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and you will call his name Emanuel.”
The Greek Septuagint always translates Adonai and YHWH as Kirios. The Septuagint also takes almah to mean "virgin" here as it writes the specific greek word for virgin which is parthenos and not the greek word for a maiden. The question one needs to raise here is what motivation would the Jewish rabbi translators of the Septuagint have , to write “virgin” and not “young maiden” in the Greek 250 years before Jesus even came on the scene?
