Matthew 1:22 and 23, sets forth that Jesus was born of a virgin, in order that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, "Behold, A virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel."This is the standard argument that Isaiah was referring to a non-virgin, since the word almah is used instead of the standard word for virgin, betulah. Both have implications of virginity. The latter is the technical term used in the Talmud, but the former is used 7 times in the Tanakh. In each case, including the time it is used in Proverbs, it is used for a young woman, and not of one who is married. Unlike modern society, fornication was seen by the Israelites as a major sin, and any woman who fornicated was branded a whore, and hence would not be called an almah. The Syriac Peshitta uses the term for a chaste girl or virgin. The Aramaic targum uses the same root as almah, which Jonathan Ben Uzziel translates as "virgin." Most importantly, the Greek uses a word that either always or almost always means virgin. With no grammatical reason not to translate it "virgin," that's what the Greek means.
The reader will remember from the First Part of this work that we have had frequent occasion to speak of the method employed in the New Testament and other Christian works, of citing from our Scriptures certain passages, which, on careful examination, have no reference whatever to the immediate subject. Thus they quote also the passage from Isaiah 7:14, "Behold העלמה "(meaning the young woman and not virgin) "is with child, and about to bring forth a son." The prophecy was given to Ahaz, King of Judah, in order to allay his apprehensions regarding the two kings who were to come to carry on war against Jerusalem. What connection could there subsist between a sign necessary to convince the King of Jerusalem, and the event of the birth of Jesus which happened so many centuries after? How could Ahaz receive consolation from prophecy, the fulfillment of which he was not to live to see?
The bigger issue is whether this was about the present time or about the future. Justin Martyr noted that a young woman becoming pregnant is no sign from God. That happens all the time. The immediate context of the verse also gives us clues. The context switches quite rapidly without any warning. Ahaz refuses a sign, so the sign of the virgin is not for him.
Ahaz was fearful of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and of Syria. We know that Ahaz died in -710. He ascended to the throne sixteen years earlier in -726. Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria had already invaded the Northern Kingdom and was finished with this invasion in -732. The Northern Kingdom would fall in just a few years after the prophecy in -722. Samaria was smashed as predicted. This may be a fulfillment, but I am skeptical of that. Assyria was in power for quite a while afterward. Assyrian records indicate that in -701 Assyria sacked 46 cities and carried off over 200,000 captives from the kingdom of Judah. Hardly the deliverance promised to Ahaz!
Troki also objects that Jesus was not named Emmanuel, but this is a double-edged sword. No one was literally named Emmanuel. Instead, the Hebrew word for name can also mean reputation. We'll look later at Isaiah 9, which uses the term El Gibbor, which is used of God alone. If Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 9 are talking about the same person, then we should interpret the word "Immanuel" as an indication of divinity.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.