HHMI Newsgroup Archives
To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
From: James Trimm <jstrimm@home.com>
Subject: Isaiah 7:14 and the Virgin Birth of the Messiah
ISAIAH 7:14 AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH
Recently there has been some debate presented over the issue of the virgin
birth of the Messiah. Because the issue has caused such debate I felt that
I should address some of the concerns that have been raised.
LOOKING AT ISAIAH 7:14 IN CONTEXT
To begin with we must examine the controversial prophecy in Isaiah 7:14.
The passage in question reads:
Therefore the Lord himself shall
give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin [ALMA] shall
conceive, and bear a son,
And call his name Immanuel.
(Is. 7:14)
Now there are three issues I want to look at here. The first is the
meaning of the Hebrew word ALMA and why it would be used here. The second
is the reading of the other ancient versions of Isaiah 7:14. And the
third is the overall context of this passage.
Now great controversy surrounds the Hebrew word ALMA in Isaiah 7:14.
It has been suggested that the Hebrew word "ALMA" simply means "young
woman" and that if Isaiah had intended to refer to a "virgin" he would have
used the Hebrew word BETULAH. SO the question arises, what is an
ALMA? What is a BETULAH and why would Isaiah use the word ALMA rather than
BETULAH if it were to be a virgin birth?
The word ALMA refers to a young unmarried woman one of whose
characteristics is virginity. There is no instance where the word ALMA is
used to refer to a non-virgin. In such passages as Gen. 24:43 (compare
Gen. 24:43 with 24:16 where BETULAH appears) and Song 1:3; 6:8 ALMA
clearly refers to virgins. In fact the Hebrew Publishing Company
Translation of 1916 translates ALMA as "virgin" in Gen. 24:43 and in Song
1:3; 6:8. Moreover an ancient Ugaritic tablet was discovered which uses
ALMA in synonymous poetic parallelism as the synonymous parallel to the
cognate of BETULAH. For this reason one of the worlds leading Semitists,
Dr. Cyrus Gordon who is Jewish and does NOT believe in the virgin birth of
Yeshua maintains that Is. 7:14 may be translated as "virgin" (Almah in
Isaiah 7:14; Gordon, Cyrus H.; JBR 21:106). So why would Isaiah have used
ALMA rather than BETULAH? Because a BETULAH can be a young married woman
who is not a virgin, but pure because she is married (as in Joel 1:8).
Now it has been suggested that Isaiah 7:14 refers not to a birth to a
"virgin" but to a birth to a "young woman".
Now in order to understand how this passage was understood anciently we
should look at the other ancient versions of the book of Isaiah. The
Aramaic Peshitta Tanak has:
Therefore the Lord himself shall
give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin [B'TULTA] shall
conceive, and bear a son,
And call his name Immanuel.
(Is. 7:14)
The Aramaic word B'TULTA clearly means "virgin" and not simply "young
lady".
Now lets look at the Greek Septuagint reading:
Therefore the Lord himself shall
give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin [PARTHENOS] shall
conceive, and bear a son,
And call his name Immanuel.
(Is. 7:14)
The Greek PARTHENOS means "virgin" and not simply "young lady".
Thus both the ancient Aramaic and ancient Greek versions of Isaiah 7:14
understand ALMA here to refer to a virgin.
Finally I want to examine the context of Isaiah 7:14. First I will want to
examine the immediate context of Isaiah 7 and then the broader context of
this whole section of Isaiah.
Literal translation of Hebrew of Is. 7:14:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give to you(pl) a sign:
behold the ALMA will conceive and bear a son
and she will call his name Immanuel.
"you" in verse 14 is plural. By contrast King Achaz is singular you in
verses 11 and 16-17. The sign to
Achaz was that before a child should know how to choose good from bad, the
siege would end (16-17). That child was NOT be the newborn child of verse
14 the child is Isaiah's son Sh'ar-Yashuv from Isaiah 7:3. The prophecy of
Is. 7:14 is not addressed only to Achaz as is the rest of the prophecy.
The following literal translation clears things up: (s)=singular (pl)=plural
7:3a Then YHWH said to Isaiah, "Go out now to meet Achaz, you(s) and
Shear-Jashub your(s) son...
7:10 ...YHWH spoke again to Achaz saying:
7:11 "Ask a sign for yourself(s) from YHWH your(s) God; ask it either in
the depth or in the height above."
7:12 But Achaz said: "I will not ask, nor will I test YHWH"
7:13 Then he said: "Hear now, O House of David! Is it a small thing for
you(pl) to weary men, but will you(pl) weary my God also?
7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give to you(pl) a sign: behold the
ALMA will conceive and bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel.
7:15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and
choose the good.
7:16 For behold before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose
the good, the land that you(s) dread will be forsaken by both her kings.
7:17 YHWH will bring the King of Assyria upon you(s) and your(s) people and
your(s) father's house...
Note the clear distinction to what is addressed to you(pl) and what is
addressed to you(s) (Achaz) and how this creates a distinction between the
newborn in verse 14 and the child in verse 16. Thus the birth in Is. 7:14
is not a sign to Achaz alone.
Now Isaiah 8:8-9:7 also speaks of this same "Immanuael" figure. Thus it is
clear that the "Immanuel" of Is. 7:14 & 8:8 is also the child born in
Isaiah 9:6-7.
Now the NT clearly applies these passages to Yeshua as Messiah. Rev. 21:3
alludes to Is. 7:14 & 8:8, 10. 1Kefa 3:14-15 cites Isaiah 8:12-13 in
regards to Messiah. Romans 9:32 & 1Kefa 2: apply Is. 8:14 to
Messiah. Hebrews 2:13 applies Isaiah 8:17-18 to Messiah. Finally Mt.
4:15-16 and Luke 1:79 apply Isaiah 8:23-9:1 (9:1-2) to Messiah.
Of the 5 surviving fragments of the ancient Netzarim Midrash on Isaiah,
three of them fall in this section of Isaiah and all three apply the
passages to Yeshua.
Moreover the Talmud applies Is. 8:14 to Messiah (b.San. 38a) and the Targum
Jonathan on Isaiah applies Is. 9:6-7 to the Messiah as well.
Finally the figure in Isaiah 9:6-7 certainly seems to be the same as that
in Is. 11:1f. This is important because EVEYONE agrees that Is. 11:1f
refers to the Messiah.
Thus by examining the overall context of Isaiah 7:14 it becomes clear that
Isaiah 7:14 is indeed a messianic prophecy. However this would not seem to
be the case if it did not refer to a virgin birth.
LOOKING AT MATTHEW 1 AND LUKE 1
Now is clear from examining the first two chapters of both Matthew and Luke
that they each describe a virgin birth. Matthew 1:18 indicates that Miriam
was found to be "with child of the Ruach HaKodesh" "before they [Yosef and
Miriam] came together". Matt. 1:18-25 record that Yosef had to deal with
this unusual pregnancy and Mt. 1:25 specifies that Yosef "knew her not"
until after Yeshua was born. A similar account appears in Luke
1:26-35. Moreover Matthew 1:18-25 actually cites the story as a
fulfillment of the prophecy of Is. 7:14. Thus in order to reject the
virgin birth of Messiah one must also reject the clear account of Mt.
1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35. As a result a rejection of the virgin birth of
Yeshua must also entail a rejection of at least parts of the "New
Testament" canon.
DID PAUL KNOW?
Now it has been suggested that it is somehow suspicious that the virgin
birth is mentioned in the New Testament only in M. 1:18-25 and in Luke
1:26-35. Some have asked why does Paul not mention a virgin birth of the
Messiah. Well the truth is that Paul DOES in fact allude to the virgin
birth of Messiah.
In Galatians 4:4 Paul writes:
But when the fullness of the time
had come,
God sent forth his Son, born of a
woman,
born under the Torah.
Now normally Paul uses the phrase "under the Torah" to describe a false
theology held to by his opponents.
But here Paul uses the term with irony AGAINST his opponents. He points
out that Messiah fulfilled a Torah prophecy about Messiah in that he was
God's "Son, born of a woman."
This is a reference to an implied prophecy in Gen. 3:15 which speaks of the
Messianic figure what would one day crush the serpent. This Messianic
figure is referred to as "her seed" even though Adam was present. The
implication would seem to be from the context that the redeemer would be
her seed but not HIS seed. Moreover the Targums on Gen. 3:15 and Midrash
Rabbah all apply this passage to Messiah.
However even if we were to acknowledge that Paul never mentions a virgin
birth, that would not prove that he did not know of one. An absence of
evidence is NOT an evidence of absence.
THE CLAIM THAT YESHUA WAS A MAMZER
Another factor that must be considered is the fact that from the very
beginning Yeshua's enemies labeled him as a mamzer (bastard). For example
in Yochanan 8:41 Yeshua's enemies imply that they view him as a "son of
fornication". Moreover in even the earliest of Rabbinic writings (such as
the Toldot Yeshu) Yeshua is attacked for being a mamzer. These attacks
attest to the mutually accepted fact that Yosef was NOT Yeshua's biological
father.
NETZARIM AND EBIONITES
One of the best ancient descriptions we have of the ancient Netzarim is
made by the ancient writer Epiphanius who says of them:
They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament
as well... they have the Good News according to Matthew in its
entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this,
in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
(Ephiphanius; Pan. 29)
Epiphanius contrasts this description of the Nazarenes with a description
of the Ebionites in the following section of Panarian. Epiphanius described
the Ebionites as using a version of Matthew which omitted the first two
chapters and began with the story of the ministry of Yochanan (Pan.
30:13:6) Epiphanius notes that this is because the Ebionite version of
Matthew was "not wholly complete but falsified and mutilated (30:13:2).
This in contrast to the Nazarenes whom he said had Matthew "in its
entirety". Moreover while Epiphanius says of the Nazarenes: "They use...the New Testament..." (Epiphanius; Panarion 20)
Irenaeus writes of the Ebionites: "But the Ebionites use only...
Matthew..." (Irenaeus; Against Heresies 1:16:2). So the Nazarenes used the
"New Testament" and had Matthew "in its entirety" but the
Ebionites used
only Matthew in a version that was "not wholly complete but falsified and
mutilated" in such a way that it among other things, omitted the virgin
birth story in the first two chapters. It is important to note
that this important distinction (among others) distinguished Nazarenes from
Ebionites.
We must also ask the question, what did Epiphanius mean when he said:
They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament
as well... they have the Good News according to Matthew in its
entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this,
in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
(Ephiphanius; Pan. 29)
Well certainly part of what he meant was that the Nazarenes were NOT like
the Ebionites in that they used the entire NT including a Matthew which was
complete and contained the first two chapters (and therefore the virgin
birth account). Epiphanius's book Panarian is a list of groups which Rome
had labeled apostate. In this book Epiphanius seeks to discredit each of
these groups. One issue that comes up frequently is that Epiphanius does
not hesitate to attack groups for rejecting all or parts of books he
[Epiphanius] regarded as canon, or for accepting books that he [Epiphanius]
regarded as apostate or questionable. He even questions the Nazarenes for
using the "Old Testament" right along side of the "New Testament". If
the
Nazarenes rejected all or parts of what Epiphanius knew as the "New
Testament" then Epiphanius would not have hesitated to make this clear in
his attack on them. While he clarifies that they use Hebrew Matthew rather
than Greek Matthew (and I believe that they used the Aramaic NT as well) he
does NOT question their
choice of canonical NT books. Now since Epiphanius clearly did not disagree
with the Nazarene NT canon,
if we can determine the NT canon Epiphanius understood as canonical, we
would seem to also know what books the Nazarenes used as NT canon.
At this point I want to address the false claim that the 27 books we know
as the NT canon today was the product of Rome or that it was manipulated
and altered by Roman Catholic Monks. while it is true that Rome officially
acknowledged the 27 books we call the NT as the NT canon at the council of
Carthage in 397 CE this was simply an act to acknowledge the books which
were already accepted as the canon.
Now the earliest list of NT books that matches our own exactly was given by
Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 CE. Shortly afterward Jerome and Augustine
also listed the same 27 books. Now at this point I should clarify that two
NT canons existed. In the east a 22 book canon was used (it lacked 2Pt.,
2&3 John, Jude and Rev.) while in the west the familiar 27 books were used.
Note that this eastern canon of 22 books was the standard in the Parthian
Empire, which bordered the Roman Empire as a rival and was never under
Roman control. The historian Eusebius (300-320 CE) gave a list of books
identical to our 27 though he omitted Hebrews. This was likely an oversight
because he elsewhere acknowledges Hebrews as a Pauline epistle. Much
earlier Origen (245 CE) had listed the books he called
"homologoumena" (acknowledged) books. His list lacked only 2Peter, 2 &
3
Jn, Jude and Hebrews. Although elsewhere he refers to both 2Peter and
Hebrews. However this may have been an error because he elsewhere
identifies Hebrews as an
authentic Pauline production and he cites 2Peter as "scripture". The only
variances then would be between the 22 book canon of the east and the 27
books of the west). Prior to this time, if we trace back the so-called
"church fathers" of Christendom all the way back through and into the
first century. we find
them quoting as "Scripture" from the same 27 books we know today as
the "New Testament". And if we go all the way back to "New
Testament
times" we find Paul quoting Matthew=Luke right along side the Torah as
"Scripture" (1Tim. 5:18 quotes Mt. 10:10 = Lk. 10:7 with Deut. 25:4 as
"scripture") we also find 2Kefa referring to the Pauline Epistles as being
twisted by some as the do with "the rest of the scriptures" (2Kefa
3:15-16). So in NT times it seems that at least Matthew and/or Luke and the
Pauline epistles had already been canonized. In other words, like the
Tanak, the various sections of the NT were being canonized as they went.
Now when Epiphanius wrote in 370 CE of the Nazarenes:
They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament
as well... they have the Good News according to Matthew in its
entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this,
in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
(Ephiphanius; Pan. 29)
It is clear that he is saying that the ancient Nazarenes accepted and used
the same New Testament books that we know today as the New Testament. We
believe that it is clear that if this is the case and therefore Mt. 1:18-25
& Luke 1:27-35 are to be accepted as canonical, and in the absence of
manuscript evidence or interpretive issues that would discount the virgin
birth account in these passages, an acceptance of the NT as canon would
require also the acceptance of the virgin birth, and a rejection of the
virgin birth would require a rejection of all or part of the NT canon which
we as Nazarenes accept
PARALLELS WITH PAGANISM
Now it has been suggested that the fact that various pagan deities were
also supposed to have had virgin births, that this itself disproves the
virgin birth of Yeshua.
Parallels with Pagan systems does not disprove something. There are many
parallels between Judaism and/or the Tanak and Paganism.
"Adonai" in the Tanak could be said to parallel the pagan gods Adonus or
Odin...
The cananites worshiped a god named El.
"Elohim" can mean "gods".
Scholars have pointed to many parallels between the Genesis and the
Babylonian Creation stories.
The story of the flood parallels a story in many pagan systems
including the Babylonian system.
The names Abram and Sarai the patriarchs of Judaism parallel the names
Brama and Sivan the patrirachs of Hinduism.
The Torah has parallels with the code of Hammurapi the pagan King from the
days of Avraham, long befor the Torah of Moses.
The word NETZER "shoot/branch" as a title of the Messiah (Is. 11:1f)
parallels the Akkadian word Tammuz (akkadian equivalent of NETZER) the name
of a pagan god.
The names Ester and Mordechai parallel the Babylonian gods Astarte and Mardek.
Who is the "Sun of righteousness" with "wings" in Mal. 4:2?
Could it be
said to parallel the Assyrian winged solar disk?
Moses set up an image of a serpent... doesn't that contradict Torah?
Didn't the pagans sacrifice animals, circumcise and have ritual washings?
Is not the Star of David used in Paganism?
All of this just scratching the surface. HaSatan is a counterfeiter.
Such parallels prove nothing, if they did they would disprove Judaism and
the Tanak as well.
AN ISSUE OF SALVATION?
Finally is belief in the virgin birth essential for salvation? The answer
is clearly NO. It certainly NOT a rejection of the blood atonement of
the Messiah. It is not a rejection of the covenant and in and of itself it
is not a rejection of the Messiah or even his status as the "Son of Yah" or
his deity as the middle pillar of the godhead. However rejection of the
virgin birth is a step down the wrong road to be sure. It is a rejection
of the NT canon and a rejection of historical Nazarene Judaism.
James Trimm
**************************************************************
Return to
Newsgroup Archives Main Page
Return to our Main Webpage
©2011
Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by
Web Design by JB.