|
|
According to the New Testament, one of the signs of Yeshua's Messiahship was a virgin birth.
Answer for yourself: But is this really a sign that authenticates the identity of the Messiah?
Christianity claims that the Scripture to prove this is found in Isaiah 7:14:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Answer for yourself: But have we as Christians erred in our understanding of the Isaiah 7:14 passage? Is the above "Christian" translation of Isaiah accurate to the Hebrew Scriptures or a forgery?
There has probably never been an "Old" Testament Scripture more frequently quoted by Christians than this verse. This is especially true every Christmas when we are all reminded, whether we want to be or not, that a virgin brought forth a son to be the savior of the world. But, unknown to most Christians, there is a problem here, and we at Bet Emet are dedicated to the elucidation of the facts that bring assurance to the correct interpretation of the Biblical Scriptures. Thus the reason for this article and those like them. We feel mandated by God to be honest to the text, Biblical history, Biblical language, Biblical context, culture, archeology, anthropology, etc., in our pursuit of truth and the spreading of the true “Gospel” of God.
First of all, the supposed quote from Isaiah 7:14 as found in most English Bibles doesn't follow the Masoretic Text of the "Old" Testament. It comes from the Septuagint! This is of major importance because accurate Biblical translation requires that the word and the concept it carries in the original be translated accurately; thus meaning the translated word carry the same concept attached to the original word from which the translation began. Such is not the case here, and other places as well in your Bibles. We have with this Isaiah 7:14 quote a major instance of the KJV translators inserting their own theology in place of God's Word. Shame on them! But, like billions of Christians, I had heard this verse repeatedly throughout my life and it was certainly ingrained in my mind as sacred Scripture. Also, like those same millions, I can't really say that I had ever bothered to look at the story in Isaiah to put my beliefs into context. When I began to investigate the facts for myself I found things often completely different from which I both heard and been taught by Christian leaders. And so will you if you will only look for yourself!
The word translated "virgin" in Christian theology and in most New Testaments, actually means "the young woman," (i.e., the original Hebrew is "ha'almah" or "the young woman," and not "habethulah". which means "the virgin"). The original Hebrew from which the New Testament quotes reads: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Answer for yourself: Are you aware that a number of modern New Testament translations have correctly translated this verse and maybe you have yet to see them?
In fact The New English Bible, The Good News Bible, and The Revised Standard Version translate the Hebrew correctly. The verse is, literally, "Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o Immanuel" in Hebrew.
Of course there have been volumes written by Christians defending this Scripture as a prophecy of the coming Messiah (specifically Yeshua). But, even if an entire library were written, it would mean absolutely nothing in light of the real story and its connection to the salvation and the restoration of the Ten Tribes of Israel in the end time. Let us examine for ourselves.
H.W.F. Gesenius, who has authored a Hebrew Lexicon and who is considered a language scholar by other Christian scholars, renders the Hebrew "ha'almah" thus:
"Used of a youthful spouse recently married, Isa. 7:14 (compare Joel 1:8). The notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys, for which the proper word is 'habethulah.'" He notes that the Septuagint "incorrectly rendered" the word as virgin, and ends by saying, "neither does it convey the idea of the unmarried state, as has of late been maintained . . ." (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, p. 634, #5959. 23. Ibid).
I can't help but to quote the added notation of the translator of Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, one Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, L.L.D., which shows the complete ignorance and bias of Christianity in this matter: "The object in view in seeking to undermine the opinion which would assign the signification of virgin to this word, is clearly to raise a discrepancy between Isa. 7:14, and Matt. 1:23." "The absolute authority of the New Testament is, however, quite sufficient to settle the question to a Christian" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, p. 634, #5959. 23. Ibid).
Answer for yourself: But I would ask you if the New Testament should carry such authority for you and Christianity if such errors and blatant mistranslations abound?
To put the question of Isaiah 7:14 in context, we need to consider to whom the "Lord Himself" was going to give a sign, which we can do so by simply going back to that time and place. This is one of the first rules of interpretation of Scripture in that passages must be interpreted both historically and contextually. To take out scissors and cut a passage out of it’s intended meaning and catapulting it 700 years into the future in order to create a fulfilled prophecy is not the way to make sense out of the Bible.
Let us examine the context of the prophecy. King Ahaz of Judah was in a terrible state of mind when this prophecy was written as indeed he had every reason to be. His kingdom was shortly to be invaded by the King of Syria teamed with the northern Kingdom of Israel: "And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it" (Isaiah 7:1). In Isaiah 7:3-7 we read that God sent the prophet Isaiah to meet Ahaz to tell him not to fear the alliance of Israel with Syria, and that He, the Elohim of Judah, would not allow any harm to come upon the nation at this time. To alleviate the king's fears, God was going to give him a sign.
Notice verse 11: "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord." Now the king's reply didn't please God, as verse 12 makes clear.
Here was the Creator of the Universe offering not only to deliver Judah and King Ahaz, but to give comfort by performing a sign for reassurance! But, the wicked King Ahaz bluntly refused the offer! Here is God's reply in verse 14: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you (King Ahaz) a sign [of deliverance from the military threat]; Behold, ha'almah' [i.e., THE YOUNG WOMAN] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL."
Answer for yourself: Again, for what was this sign given? As assurance that Judah and its king should be delivered from their enemies!
Now consider the Christian explanation of this verse: it is that the sign would be the birth of the Messiah, which they claim was Yeshua! Can you imagine, if God was trying to comfort King Ahaz and the nation of Judah in the face of such adversity, that He would offer a sign that was to come to pass nearly 700 years in the future? Well, that is what Christianity teaches when they maintain that this was a prophecy about the birth of Jesus Christ! Please understand that I am not trying to discount belief in Yeshua as Messiah, only to enlighten those who call themselves by his name of the terrible injustice they do to the truth that in the final analysis nullifies their witness to the Jewish people who KNOW BETTER!
God might as well have told Ahaz, "700 years from now, after you and all the people in the kingdom are dust in the ground, I will give you a sign that I will deliver Judah from this enemy that now threatens you." There would be little comfort in such a promise!
Answer for yourself: But let me ask you...was Israel delivered during the time of Yeshua (Yeshua) or after his life? If anything, things got worse with the war of 70 C.E. and the ultimate defeat in 135 C.E. which would culminate with the banishment of the Jews themselves.
However, Matthew's account would have us believe that the birth of Yeshua was the sign from God to King Ahaz: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (1:22-23, KJV).
Answer for yourself: Can you see the utter nonsense of such a statement now?
What Matthew's assertion means in light of what the Scripture actually says is nonsense! This is no inspiration or inerrancy or infallibility in this! What's more, the Hebrew word harah. is past or perfect tense, "conceived," which in both Hebrew and English, represents past and completed action, and a number of rabbis have pointed this out to stubborn Christians! The verse should read: "Behold the young woman has conceived [is with child] and bears a son .." (Drazin, Their Hollow Inheritance, pp. 172-174).
Furthermore, the definite term "the young woman" indicates that King Ahaz personally knew the woman through whom the sign was to be given. It would hardly have been a sign to the king if some totally unknown woman bore a son and named him Immanuel about which Ahaz would have never known. It would have to be someone the king knew as "the young woman" clearly indicates. In other words, at some point into the terrible situation confronting the kingdom, someone would come to the king and say, "by the way, your niece gave birth to a son today: she has named him Immanuel which means that God is with us." Suddenly King Ahaz would remember the words of Isaiah's prophecy! Suddenly, and perhaps finally, he would trust in God to deliver Judah from their enemies! (The Collegeville Bible Commentary quite candidly speculates that the young woman in question was known to Ahaz, and notes that she may have well been one of the king's wives. p. 422).
"And she shall call his name Immanuel," which means "God is with us." What an absolutely clear statement! Isaiah 7 doesn't say that God would be born "among us," but that He was "on our side": He would fight for Judah and deliver them from their enemies !
This would be a good place to make another observation.
Answer for yourself: Have you ever wondered why Yeshua or Joshua, his Hebrew name, wasn't called Immanuel if Isaiah 7 was a prophecy about the coming Messiah?
The reason Yeshua was not called Immanuel was because Isaiah 7 is not a prophecy of a coming Messiah.
All we have in the "Immanuel" prophecy is another case of the NT (Gentile) writers scouring the "Old" Testament in an effort to prove Yeshua's Messiahship, and they did so decidedly too late to rename Yeshua Immanuel!
This notwithstanding, let's lay to rest the claim that this is a prophecy of the coming Messiah by looking at verse 15 of chapter 7. This Scripture tells us that the young child, Immanuel, would not, by any means, be perfect as we are told the sinless Yeshua was. "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." In other words, this little boy, Immanuel, was to learn, like all humans do, right from wrong by experience! Notice then verse 16: "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil [ meaning he would be a sinner!], and choose the good, the land that thou abhorest shall be forsaken of both her kings." Again, the child Immanuel was to be born as a sign to Ahaz, and before this imperfect, sinful little human child was two or three years old, Judah would be delivered from her enemies!
If we go to II Kings 16:9 we see God delivered Judah as He had promised Ahaz! History tells us clearly that three years after the sign to King Ahaz (732 B.C.E.) Tiglath-Pileser III took Damascus, and executed the Syrian king and destroyed the Syrian kingdom, which rendered Israel completely powerless (Asimov's Guide to the Bible, pp. 375, 532). These events happening three years from the time of Isaiah's prophecy clearly spells out the meaning of Isaiah 7:16 and the identity of the child Immanuel! What the Holy Scriptures and history clearly spell out is that Ahaz and Judah were delivered from their enemies, which means that the sign of the birth of the child Immanuel must have also come to pass. There is no prophecy here of a child being born almost 700 years in the future! To understand that when God gave a promise of a sign that it was carried out immediately, notice II Kings 20:8 and II Kings 20:11, Judges 6:17 and Judges 6:21.
Furthermore, if one wants to find a way around these facts by claiming that this is a "dual" prophecy, which many ministers now preach, then to honest to the truth the entire chapter needs to be applied in this manner. That is, we must understand that Yeshua did not live a sinless life because the child Immanuel had to learn to refuse evil and choose good. It is uncertain how the idea of “dual prophecy” came to be instituted in Christianity. Some churches rely very heavily upon the explanation of dual prophecy because it very often relieves them from discarding their erroneous theology and religious belief system and getting bogged down in questions that are unanswerable outside the duality argument. What duality of prophecy means, as taught by some Christian churches, is that prophecies, such as Isaiah 7, that can be shown to have come to pass before the advent of Christianity, will also be fulfilled at a later time. Of course, these ministers will arbitrarily pick and choose which Scriptures are "dual" based solely on their own interpretation of prophecy, itself a victim of their church's doctrine.
In addition we must believe that God delivered Judea from their enemies (meaning Rome) in the time of Yeshua. Just a quick check of Biblical history teaches otherwise.
To sum this discussion up, I would like to illustrate a typical tactic used by Christian writers when dealing with Isaiah chapter 11. Defending the Christian position that this is a prophecy about Yeshua, but not being able to explain the Scripture within its "OT" context, Christian writers often assert: "The real key to understanding this remarkable prophecy of Isaiah is found in the New Testament." They then proceeds to explain Isaiah 11 by using the Gospel of Matthew! Absolutely incredible! Not being able to prove the Messiahship of Yeshua from the true prophecies of Israel, these Christian ministers assures us that Yeshua was the Messiah by quoting other NT scriptures! I guess what get to me the most is that I don't want to or feel the need to lie to convince others of the Messiahship of Yeshua because God is author of Truth and not lies. Thus I and others with Bet Emet strive to rightly interpret the Word of God so that the Holy Spirit can witness to Truth. Such honors God and His Word. No honest God-fearing human being should present Yeshua as Messiah to Non-Jews as well as Jews using lies and historical untruths. It is only by the authority of Israel's sacred Scriptures, the Old Testament, that the Messiah can be understood! We should only teach Yeshua as fulfilling Scripture when he actually does, and not apply prophecies to him which never were intended by God for His Son. More to follow. Shalom.