Was She, or Was She not "A Virgin"?

Her OB/GYN Would Have Known!

 

Part 2: The Jewish Perspective on Isaiah 7:14

 

 

I.            Common Christian Apologetics Concerning Isaiah 7:14, and Their Refutation

 

Over the past 19 centuries, Christian apologists have been busy fashioning defenses (hence the term "apologist") for their interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, a verse allegedly quoted by the author of the Gospel of Matthew in Matthew 1:23.  Many Christian-Jewish debates took place, often by coercion, in which various claims were made by the Christian side and countered by the Jewish side.  For every Jewish response that refuted a Christian claim, new apologetics were developed to prove the validity of the fulfillment in Jesus of Isaiah's prophecy and to try to invalidate the Jewish perspective.  This was very popular in medieval times, and it has regained popularity in our times as part of the aggressive campaign by various Hebrew-Christian and evangelical missionary organizations to convert Jews to Christianity.

 

In this segment, some of the common Christian claims are explored and, in each case, the respective Jewish refutations are presented.

 

A.     Claim:  (almah) means "virgin", therefore, this prophecy foretells the miraculous birth of Jesus.

 

1.      Straightforward  Usage of  (almah)

 

U      The Christian apologetic argument is that  (almah) implicitly indicates virginity of the female in question.  This is based on the contention that the noun refers to a female who is a virgin in every other instance where this term or one of its other forms is applied in the Hebrew Bible.

 

Y      The Jewish response is based on the general understanding that the noun  (almah) represents an age group and not a state of sexual purity.  As noted earlier, the term  (almah) means a young woman of marriageable age, i.e. of child-bearing age [the male equivalent of which is  (elem)], irrelevant of the status of her sexual experience, i.e., whether or not the young woman is a virgin is not at issue, as its usage in the Hebrew Bible suggests.  For example, when one would say in English, "A young woman went to the store.", nothing in this sentence contains any information about her virginity – it is a non sequitur.  When the term  (almah) is used in a sentence in spoken Hebrew, or in a verse in Biblical Hebrew, there is no implicit reference to the young woman’s virginity.  Those who are fluent in the Hebrew language knows this.  Other more accurate vocabulary was available to Isaiah had he desired to specifically refer here to a virgin - the Hebrew term  (b^etulah) means a virgin.

 

The noun  (almah) appears in various forms (singular, plural) in the Hebrew Bible seven times (Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Is 7:14; Ps 68:26; Pr 30:19; SoS 1:3, 6:8).  In fact, the Prophet applied the word  (b^etulah) on five occasions throughout his writings (Is 23:4,12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5).  A closer look at the remaining six instances of  (almah) in the Hebrew Bible helps demonstrate the correct meaning of this term.

 

a.      Genesis 24:43

 

Genesis 24:43 – Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the young woman [ (ha'almah)] comes forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I beg you, a little water from your water jar to drink;

 

This is a reference to Rebecca.  When Abraham’s servant saw her and later related the story, all he could possibly determine (from her appearance) is that she was a beautiful young female, he obviously could not have known whether or not she was a virgin, since he did not know her marital status.  Moreover, if  (almah) had meant "virgin", why would the Torah be redundant and explicitly refer to Rebecca as  (b^etulah), a virgin, in Genesis 24:16?

 

b.     Exodus 2:8

 

Exodus 2:8 – And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go.  And the young woman [ (ha'almah)] went and called the child’s mother.

 

Here the reference is to Miriam, the older sister of Aaron and Moses, though nothing more is known about her at this point.  There is no other information given in this or any other passage within the Hebrew Bible that could help determine whether Miriam was a virgin in the scene described in Exodus 2:8.

 

c.      Psalms 68:26

 

Psalms 68:26 – The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were young women [ (alamot)] beating tambourines.

 

There is absolutely no way to determine from the context whether any or all of those tambourine-playing young women were virgins.  To assume that all were virgins is a rather bold leap of faith.  To simply conclude that none of them were married, given the fact that Jewish women often displayed their joy in dance and by playing musical instruments when rejoicing at a wedding or when welcoming their husbands from the battlefront (e.g., Exod 15:20;1 Sam 18:6), would be a position that is difficult to defend.

 

d.     Proverbs 30:19

 

Proverbs 30:18-19 – (18) There are three things which are too wonderful for me, indeed, four which I know not; (19) The way of a vulture in the sky; the way of a serpent on a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a [virile] man [ (gever)] with a young woman [ (b^ealmah)].

 

The only time that "… the way of a [virile] man with a young woman ..." does not leave a trace (i.e., a broken hymen) is if the hymen of the  (almah) were already not intact.

 

e.      Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8

 

Song of Songs 1:3 – Your anointing oils are fragrant, your name is oil poured out, therefore maidens [ (alamot)] love you.

 

The  (alamot), young women, loved King Solomon!  Could they have been among his many concubines or wives?

 

Song of Songs 6:8 – There are sixty queens, and eighty concubines, and maidens [ (va’alamot)] without number.

 

60 wives, 80 concubines, and countless  (alamot) were listed as being among King Solomon’s lovers.

 

Of the above listed six applications, only the first one is about a young woman, Rebecca, who is also explicitly identified as a virgin.  There is no indication in any of the other five cases that the females were virgins.

 

2.      Another Proposal for the Use of  (almah) and not  (b^etulah)

 

U      Christian apologists and missionaries counter and claim that Isaiah used the term  (almah) to avoid any misunderstanding by the reader that he may have intended to metaphorically refer to a nation and still maintain the core concept of virginity; an argument based on four cases where Isaiah uses the term  (b^etulah) in this manner (Is 23:12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5).  The claim is that, in these four applications, on three occasions the reference is metaphorical to a nation, and on the fourth occasion, it is used as a pattern argument for the nation.  It is further claimed that this pattern was also utilized by the Prophet Jeremiah on seven occasions.

 

Y      The Jewish response identifies and addresses the flaws in this line of reasoning.  First, Isaiah actually uses the term  (b^etulah) on five (not four) occasions, with the one left out by the Christian apologists and missionaries being Isaiah 23:4.  Isaiah 23:4 together with Isaiah 62:5 constitute an effective counter-argument, since these leave no doubt that the Prophet knew very well how to apply the term:

 

Isaiah 23:4 - Be you ashamed, O Sidon; for the sea has spoken, even the strength of the sea, saying, I labored not, nor brought forth children, nor did I nourish up young men, nor brought up virgins [ (b^etulot)].

 

Isaiah 62:5 - For as a young man marries a virgin [ (b^etulah)], so shall your sons marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your G-d rejoice over you.

 

Second, the appeal to Jeremiah’s use of  (b^etulah) on seven occasions to support some alleged pattern is inappropriate, since he applied this term a total of 15 times in his two books the (Jeremiah and Lamentations).  Clearly, he used it more often to speak specifically of a female who was a virgin than as a metaphorical reference to a nation.

 

Third, the comparison between Isaiah and only Jeremiah is inherently biased.  Would it not be more appropriate to study the usage of the term in the entire Hebrew Bible?  The term  (b^etulah) appears in the Hebrew Bible 50 times – 9 times in the Pentateuch and 41 times in the rest of the Hebrew Bible.  Such a study would leave no doubt that  (b^etulah) is the correct term to use when referring to a virgin.

 

B.    Claim:  This is a "dual fulfillment" foretelling the miraculous birth of Jesus

 

U      The Christian apologetic and missionary argument is that, given the obvious problem created by the context of Isaiah 7:14 vis-à-vis  Matthew’s claim that the verse foretells the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, the solution is that Isaiah 7:14 has to be a "dual prophecy", a prophecy that was fulfilled twice.  The claim is that Isaiah’s words to King Ahaz had two separate and distinct applications.  Christian apologists and missionaries will concede that the first application of Isaiah’s prophecy was addressed to King Ahaz and his crisis at hand.  The child, Immanuel, was born contemporaneously, and the "first leg" of this "dual prophecy" was fulfilled in the eighth century B.C.E.  They insist, however, that there was a "second leg" of this "dual prophecy", and that it applies to the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus at the turn of the Era.  With this elaborate explanation, they maintain that the apparent use of Isaiah 7:14 in the Gospel of Matthew is entirely appropriate.  In short, it is claimed that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled twice: once in 732 B.C.E., and a second time at the dawn of the Christian era.

 

Y      The Jewish response identifies and addresses the problems created by this explanation.  For starters, the notion of a "dual prophecy" is unbiblical, and it appears to have been crafted in order to explain away a serious theological problem:  No hint or evidence of a second fulfillment exists anywhere in this chapter or elsewhere in the Book of Isaiah.

 

Moreover, if, as claimed, the word  (ha'almah) means "a virgin" and Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, then who was the first virgin that conceived in King Ahaz’s time?  Were there two virgin births?  In other words, if Christian apologists and missionaries claim that the "Virgin Birth", allegedly prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, was fulfilled twice, then who was that first virgin about to give birth to a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.?  Bearing in mind the claim that the word  (ha'almah) can only mean "a virgin", does this not imply that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive, remain a virgin, and give birth to a male child?  Think about that!

 

Furthermore, if it is claimed that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy", how could Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad Immanu’el?

 

Isaiah 7:14-16 – (14) Therefore the L-rd, of His own, shall give you a sign, “Behold the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and you [or, she] shall call his name Immanu’el.  (15) Cream and honey he [Immanu'el] shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; (16) for, when the lad [Immanu'el] does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”

 

If Isaiah’s words are the substance of a "dual prophecy", answers to the following questions need to be provided by the claimants: 

 

§         At what age did baby Jesus mature?

§         What are the implications that Jesus sinned up to this age?

§         Which two kingdoms were abandoned during the lifetime of Jesus?

§         How could the Kingdom of Israel be dreaded during the first century C.E., when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the eighth century B.C.E.?

§         Where is the account of Jesus eating cream and honey recorded?

 

Does any of this make sense?  From the Jewish perspective, it does not, and from the Christian point of view, it is indefensible.  It appears that the argument of a "dual prophecy" was born out of desperation.

 

U      Christian apologists and missionaries counter and attempt to explain away the problem of the unbiblical nature of "dual prophecy" by claiming that, in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, the prophet addressed King Ahaz both in the singular "you" and in the plural "you".  [Unlike the English language, the Hebrew language has separate pronouns for singular and plural.]  They claim that, at times, Isaiah addressed King Ahaz alone, and in other places in this chapter, he addressed the House of David.  Therefore, they conclude that, whenever the prophet addressed the House of David, or spoke in the plural "you", he was addressing the future Davidic dynasty (i.e., Jesus, the claimed heir to it, some seven centuries later).  On the other hand, whenever Isaiah addressed King Ahaz, or spoke in the singular "you", he was addressing the immediate crisis facing King Ahaz, created by the two kingdoms that were poised to defeat him.  They argue that in using Hebrew word  (lachem), [plural] you, in Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah addresses the future House of David and, thereby, points to the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, which was associated with the House of David, not with King Ahaz and military crisis he was facing.

 

Y      The Jewish response to this claim is that, in this chapter, it is clearly demonstrated that both the House of David and King Ahaz were threatened by the situation, not just King Ahaz himself.  Every reference to the House of David and the plural "you", which was addressed to the entire Davidic House, referred only to the military crisis described herein.  In fact, in the second verse of this chapter, Isaiah relates that both, King Ahaz and the House of David, were informed of the crisis created by the two warring kingdoms.  This verse goes on to declare that both his heart [ (l^evavo)] (of King Ahaz – singular)] and the heart of his nation [ (u’l^evav ammo)] (of Judah/the House of David – plural) were trembling with fear.  Not only King Ahaz alone was terrified of these two hostile armies, the entire House of David was scared as well.

 

Isaiah delivered the message in this fashion, by repeatedly addressing King Ahaz as the House of David and in the plural "you" throughout this chapter, for a reason.  King Ahaz was a wicked king and, as such, was personally undeserving of G-d’s merciful intervention.  Nevertheless, King Ahaz was spared through the merit of the House of David.  The two kingdoms intended to conquer Jerusalem in order to undermine the throne of David (Is 7:6).  G-d promised King David that his dynasty would be preserved regardless of the worthiness of the king on the throne (2 Sam 7:12-16).  King Ahaz was saved by G-d in the merit of the House of David, not through his own worthiness.

 

C.    Claim:  Biblical Hebrew has no tenses

 

U      Christian apologists and missionaries argue that tenses do not exist in Biblical Hebrew (though they admit that Modern Hebrew has tenses).  They insist that both medieval and modern grammarians recognize that Biblical Hebrew is an “aspectual” language rather than a language with tenses.  This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as past, present, or future, depending on the context and various grammatical cues.  Some of the Jewish sources being quoted as examples (all are single sentences or portions of a sentence, possibly taken out of context) are RADAQ (R’ David Qimhi; 12^th/13^th century), R’ Isaac Ben Yedaiah (13^th century), David Altschuler (commentator; 18^th century), Nahum Sarna (commentator; contemporary).  Also quoted are passages from Gesenius’ (1786-1842) Hebrew Grammar, and from an unnamed author’s An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax – the former by a Christian theologian and grammarian, and the latter likely to be by a non-Jewish author, and it is likely that neither was a Hebrew speaker.

 

Y      This is a complex issue.  The Jewish perspective is that, though there are instances where the proper tense must be inferred from context, the three perfect tenses and even imperfect tenses are generally present in the Hebrew Bible.  The imperfect tenses are achieved with the seven verb stems - pa’al [qal], niph’al, pi’el, pu’al, hitpa’el, hiph’il, hoph’al, in the Hebrew grammar.  This is a very difficult grammatical framework for most, if not all, non-Hebrew speakers to comprehend.

 

At issue is the term  (harah) in Isaiah 7:14.  As was previously explained (see Sec. II.E.3),  (harah) can be either a noun, meaning a pregnant female, or a verb, meaning, [I] am/[you] are/[she] is pregnant, i.e., conjugated in the 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd-person, singular, feminine, present tense.

 

Among the 40 applications of the verb  (harah) in the context of being pregnant, there are eight instances of the verb conjugated in the 3^rd-person, singular, feminine, present tense, and these are shown in Table III.C-1.

 

Table III.C-1 – Comparing Jewish and KJV renditions of the verb  (harah)

 

Reference	Correct Translation	KJV Translation	Remarks
Genesis 16:11	[you] are pregnant, or [you] are with child	thou art with child	The phrase  (hinnach harah) is used here.
Genesis 38:24	[she] is pregnant, or [she] is with child	[she] is with child
Genesis 38:25	[I] am pregnant, or [I] am with child	am [I] with child
Judges 13:5(1)(2)	[you] are pregnant, or [you] are with child	thou shalt conceive	The phrase  (hinnach harah) is used here.
Judges 13:7(1)(2)	[you] are pregnant, or [you] are with child	thou shalt conceive	The phrase  (hinnach harah) is used here.
1 Samuel 4:19	[Phineas' wife] was pregnant, or [Phineas' wife] was with child	[Phinehas' wife] was with child
2 Samuel 11:5	[I] am pregnant, or [I] am with child	[I] am with child
Isaiah 7:14	[the young woman] is pregnant, or [the young woman] is with child	[a virgin] shall conceive	The phrase  []  (hinnei [ha'almah] harah) is used here

(1) In Judges 13:5,7,  (harah) is in the present tense – the woman is told that she is already pregnant.  In v. 4 the angel tells the woman (Samson’s mother to be) to stay away from alcoholic beverages and unclean foods because (v. 5) she is carrying a child that she will give birth to…  Similarly, in v. 7, the woman relates the story to her husband, Mano’ah, quoting what the angel told her. (Interestingly, most Jewish translations show the future tense here.)

(2) The translator's note (tn) from NET Bible on Judges 13:5,7 is interesting:

tn (13:5,7) Another option is to translate, “you are already pregnant and will have a son.”  The earlier reference to her being infertile (v. 3) suggests that her conception is still future, but it is possible that the earlier statement only reflects her perspective (as far as she is concerned, she is infertile).  According to this interpretation, in v. 5 the angel reveals the truth to her—actually she has recently conceived and is now pregnant.  (See the translation in R. G. Boling, Judges, 217.)  Usage favors this interpretation.  The predicate adjective äøä (harah), “[be/become] pregnant”) elsewhere has a past (1 Sam 4:19) or present (Gen 16:11; 38:25; 2 Sam 11:5) translation value.  (The usage in Isa 7:14 is debated, but a present translation is definitely possible there.)  A final, but less likely possibility, is that she miraculously conceived during the angel’s speech, sometime between his statements recorded in vv. 3 and 5.

 

It is also worthwhile to examine the Hebrew term  (hinnach) that precedes the verb  (harah) in Judges 13:5,7.  It was already shown that the expression  (hinnach harah) appears in Gen 16:11, where it is typically translated (e.g., KJV) as Behold, thou art with child – in the present tense, which is correct.  The term , which is the conjugation of  (hinnei) in the 2^nd-person, singular, female, present tense, meaning behold, you are…, is used in the Hebrew Bible on seven occasions, at Genesis 16:11, Judges 13:5,7, Song of Songs 1:15(x2), 4:1(x2).  The applications in Judges 13:5,7 were already discussed above.  Here are the remaining five cases as rendered in KJV:

 

Genesis 16:11(KJV) – And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child [ (hinnach harah)] and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

 

Song of Songs 1:15(KJV) – Behold, thou art fair [ (hinnach yaffah)], my love; behold, thou art fair [ (hinnach yaffah)]; thou hast doves' eyes.

 

Song of Songs 4:1(KJV) - Behold, thou art fair [ (hinnach yaffah)], my love; behold, thou art fair [ (hinnach yaffah)]; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

 

Note how the verb that follows each behold, thou art,  (hinnach), is correctly cast in the present tense.  Contrast these cases with the way the KJV translators treat the same construct in Judges 13:5,7.

 

Considering the other flaws in the KJV translation of Isaiah 7:14 and the Christological significance of this verse, the rendition of the verb  (harah) as being in the (distant) future tense cannot be credible. 

 

Finally, it is interesting to note that the 3^rd-person, singular, feminine, future tense conjugation of the verb  (harah), which is  (tahar), is never found in the Hebrew Bible to be applied as such.  Instead, on all 28 occasions in which this particular conjugation is used, it is combined with the conversive-vav,  (va'tahar), thereby changing the tense from future to past to make it and she became pregnant.

 

D.    Claim:   (b^etulah) is not exclusive to "a virgin" in the Hebrew Bible

 

U      Christian apologists and missionaries argue that, although the term  (b^etulah) can be used specifically to denote "a virgin" (e.g., Lev 21:3,14; Ezek 44:22), it generally is non-specific in this area (e.g., Deut 32.25; Ps 148:12; 2 Chron 36.17).  Moreover, they point to passages where it is claimed to specifically refer to women who are not virgins (e.g., Joel 1:8; Est 2:17; Ezek 23:3).  The following interpretations are offered for these instances.

 

In Joel 1:8, a  (b^etulah) is called upon to lament over the death of her husband.  The word used for husband in this verse is  (ba'al), a term they claim is never used of a bridegroom, only of a "full husband".  In other words, the  (b^etulah) in this passage cannot be a virgin since she was married.

 

In Esther 2:17, the girls are called  (b^etulot) after spending a night with the king.

 

In the parable of Ezekiel 23:3, the  (b^etulah) breasts of the sisters, Aholah and Aholibah, were being handled in harlotry, leaving the impression that the notion of "a virgin" is quite removed.

 

Y      The Jewish response to the claims in Esther 2:17 and Ezekiel 23:3 is rather straightforward, and utilizes both the Hebrew language and the context of the passages.  The response to the claim made with regard to Joel 1:8 is more involved, though it is effective and conclusive.

 

To counter the apologetic claim about Esther 2:17 one must examine all the applications of the term  (b^etulah) in the Scroll of Esther.  The word is used four times, in Esther 2:2,3,17,19.  The application of  (b^etulah) in Esther 2:2,3 is not in question - it clearly refers to "a virgin".  The first case in question, then, is the following:

 

Esther 2:17 - The king loved Esther more than all the women, and she found more favor and kindness before him than all the other virgins [ (b^etulot)]; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen in place of Vashti.

 

Nowhere in Esther 2:17 is it stated that those other "virgins" had already spent a night with the king.  Being "a virgin" was the pre-requisite for being placed in the king’s harem.  From that point on, it was merely a beauty contest.  The Jewish tradition was that a woman would remain "a virgin" for up to one year following her betrothal.  There is no reason to assume, nor is there any indication in the entire text of the Scroll of Esther, that Esther spent a night with the king before he named her and she became the queen.  In fact, Esther 2:20 reinforces this conclusion: 

 

Esther 2:19-20 – (19) And when the virgins [ (b^etulot)] were gathered together the second time, and Mordechai sat at the king’s gate, (20) Esther still told nothing of her kindred or her people as Mordechai had instructed her; for Esther continued to obey Mordechai, just as when she was reared by him.” 

 

Clearly, utilizing Esther 2:17 to support the claim that  (b^etulah) can be used to refer to a woman who is not a virgin is an error by those who do not know nor understand the Hebrew language, the Hebrew Bible, nor Jewish customs and traditions.  Finally, Esther 2:19 speaks of a second roundup of new virgins for the king’s harem.  Nothing in the text indicates these women were "recycled virgins" who had already spent a night with the king.

 

Ezekiel 23:3 is another example that demonstrates both a flawed contextual interpretation and a lack of knowledge and understanding of the Hebrew language and the Hebrew Bible by Christian apologists an missionaries:

 

Ezekiel 23:3 – They indulged in promiscuity in Egypt; they were promiscuous in their youth.  There their bosoms were pressed and there their breasts of their virginity [ (dadei b^etuleihen)] were squeezed.

 

The nation is likened to prostitutes whose infidelity earns them the contempt of all, including their paramours.  Israel’s two branches, Judah and Ephraim [also often referred to as Israel], began as a united nation in Egypt.  But even while still in Egypt, they were promiscuous, as described with this metaphor, i.e., they picked up the idolatrous practices of Egypt.  Later, the two branches, Judah and Ephraim, each followed the idolatrous ways of its neighbors and fell away from obeying the Torah's Commandments.  Note, however, that in all three places in this chapter where the graphic description of squeezing the sisters’ breasts of their virginity [ (dadei b^etuleihen)] is depicted, it mentions that it was done in their youth, i.e., their first sexual experiences (until that point they were indeed virgins) occurred in Egypt, which is where they "lost their virginity", metaphorically speaking.  In other words, the expression  (dadei b^etuleihen), breasts of their virginity, refers to their youth just prior to losing their innocence.  Moreover, it must also be noted here that the noun  (b^etulah), is not used in this verse.  Rather, the noun  (b^etulim), hymen (the sign of virginity), is used – a noun that appears ten times in the Hebrew Bible in various forms.  This, once again, demonstrates the lack of familiarity with the Hebrew language by the Christian apologists and missionaries.  Following that first experience, the notion of virginity is far removed and, as one reads on in Ezekiel, the term is no longer used beyond that first time in reference to Aholibah, and then once more, in Ezekiel 23:8, in reference to her sister Aholah’s youth.

 

The last case, Joel 1:8, is the most difficult and sophisticated example:

 

Joel 1:8 - Lament/wail as a virgin [ (ki’v'tulah)] girded with a sackcloth [mourning] for the husband of [or, man of] her youth [ (al ba’al n^eure’ha)].

 

In the translation above, the expression "man of" is shown in addition to the common expression "husband of" in order to demonstrate a specific application, unique to this verse in the entire Hebrew Bible but appropriate in this instance.  The expression "man of" serves an almost generic purpose here, because those who are not familiar with the old Jewish customs may easily be fooled by the Hebrew noun  (ba’al), which normally means husband.  In this case, the noun appears in a possessive construct, which gives it the meanings, husband of … or owner of ….[1]  The claim that the word for husband,  (ba’al), is never used of a "betrothed bridegroom", only of a "full husband", is simply not true.

 

According to the ancient custom, the Jewish marriage process consisted of two separate events.  The first event was  (erusin), a betrothal (a term that does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, but is a later derivative of the Biblical root verb  (eras), [to] betroth), which is when the couple became "engaged".  Betrothal could last for a period of up to one year, during which time the man generally got himself established in a position that would enable him to support his wife and future family.  During this time, the couple did not cohabitate.  At the end of the betrothal period came  (nissu'in), the actual marriage (a term that does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, but is a later derivative of the Biblical root verb  (nassa), [to] marry), took place, which is when the marriage was consummated by way of the first sanctioned sexual contact.  The  (b^etulah), virgin, in Joel 1:8 is grieving for her man who died (for some unknown reason) before their marriage was consummated.  This man was the "husband-to-be" who had the claim to, i.e., who was the owner of … [ (ba’al)] her virginity, had he lived.  In other words, he owned the right to (take) her virginity [remember these were Biblical times!].  To attach a dual meaning of "a non-virgin" to  (b^etulah) from this verse is simply an act of desperation, and it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of both the Hebrew language and Jewish tradition.

 

The salient point of Joel 1:8 is that the “…virgin lamenting for the husband of her youth…” is a "married virgin" (a betrothed woman who has never been with a man sexually) whose betrothed husband (from her youth) died (for some unknown reason) before the marriage was consummated with the  (nissu'in), i.e., before she had sexual relations with him.

 

Where would a "married virgin", such as the one in Joel 1:8, be in her youth [ (bin^eureiha)]?  The answer is found in the following passages:

 

Numbers 30:4,17 – (4) And if a woman makes a vow to the L-rd, or imposes a prohibition [upon herself] while in her father's house, in her youth [ (bin^eureiha)],

(17) These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses regarding a man and his wife; between a father and his daughter, in her youth [ (bin^eureiha)], while in her father's house.

 

A "married virgin", such as the one in Joel 1:8, would be found in her father's house in her youth!  Support for this paradigm is found in several places in the Hebrew Bible:

 

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - (23) If a girl who is a virgin [ (v^etulah)] is betrothed [ (m^eorasah)] to a husband [ (iysh)], and a man [ (iysh)] finds her in the city, and lies with her; (24) Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the girl, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man [ (ha’iysh)], because he has humbled his neighbor’s wife [ (eishet re’eihu)]; so you shall put away evil from among you.

 

Note in the above passage that the "fiancée" of the betrothed virgin is referred to as "a husband" [Deut 22:23; one of the meanings of  (iysh)], and that she is referred to as her fiancée’s "wife" [Deut 22:24; one of the meanings of  (ishah)].  From this passage it is clear that the  (b^etulah) in Joel 1:8 is "a virgin" in the strictest sense of the word, i.e., a betrothed woman who has not had sexual intercourse with a man.

 

Christian apologists and missionaries have argued with this interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:23-24 on the basis that the translations of  (iysh) and  (ishah) are subjective, even though the context is clear.  This argument can also be defeated by quoting this passage from the KJV, the widely used Christian translation, to eliminate any claims of bias by Jewish translators:

 

Deuteronomy 22:23-24(KJV) - (23) If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; (24) Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

 

The following analysis demonstrates an alternate way to argue, from Scripture, the validity of the Jewish claim (that the  (b^etulah) in Joel 1:8 is, indeed, "a virgin".  It is not even necessary to go outside of this chapter (Joel 1) to demonstrate the correct context, since it is part of the metaphorical description of the prophecy of the devastating plague of locusts.

 

When the chapter is read carefully and the descriptions in the verses around Joel 1:8 are analyzed, the following will be observed:

 

§         In Joel 1:5, The drunks will not get to taste the fine wine:

 

Joel 1:5 - Awake, you drunkards, and weep; and howl, all you drinkers of wine, because of the new wine, for it is cut off from your mouth.

 

§         In Joel 1:7, the vine and fig tree that were planted and have grown will not yield the fruits:

 

Joel 1:7 - He has laid my vine waste, and splintered my fig tree; he has made it clean bare, and thrown it down; its branches are made white.

 

§         In Joel 1:10, the grain, wine, and oil will not be consumed:

 

Joel 1:10 - The field is wasted, the land mourns; for the grain is wasted; the new wine is dried up, the oil languishes.

 

§         Joel 1:11 structurally parallels Joel 1:8, but expressed as a metaphor:

 

Joel 1:11 - Be ashamed, O plowmen; wail, O vine dressers – over wheat and over barley, for the harvest of the field has been lost; the wine has dried up and the fig tree has been devastated; the pomegranate tree as well as the date tree and the apple tree – all the trees of the field – have dried up, for rejoicing has dried up from among the sons of man. 

 

Note how the "second phase" of the process, in this case, the harvesting of the fruit, which follows the planting and metaphorically represents the consummation of a marriage, will not be realized.  This is an amazing parallel to the lamenting virgin whose betrothed husband,  (ba’al n^eure’ha, the husband of her youth), had died before their marriage was consummated.  Scripture validates itself right here!

 

Two additional examples of parallel metaphoric passages help demonstrate the validity of this interpretation of Joel 1:8 and its robustness:

 

Deuteronomy 20:6-7 – (6) And who is the man [ (ha’iysh)] that has planted a vineyard, and has not used the fruit thereof? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man use the fruit thereof.  (7) And who is the man [ (ha’iysh)] who has betrothed [ (eras)] a wife [ (ishah)], and has not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.

 

Deuteronomy 28:30-31 – (30) You shall betroth [ (t^eares)] a wife [ (ishah)], and another man shall lie with her; you shall build a house, and you shall not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, and shall not gather its grapes.  (31) Your ox shall be slain before your eyes, and you shall not eat of it; your ass shall be violently taken away from before your face, and shall not be restored to you; your sheep shall be given to your enemies, and you shall have none to rescue them.

 

The structure of the Joel 1 passages clearly parallels the two-phase Jewish marriage custom, a paradigm that is supported by similar passages from elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.  The Prophet Joel indicates in this way that his application of the noun  (b^etulah) in Joel 1:8 means exactly what it always (i.e., exclusively!) means in Hebrew (both Biblical and Modern) – "a virgin", a woman who has not had sexual intercourse with a man.

 

E.     Other Claims

 

There are still many other Christian apologetic and missionary arguments that attempt to defend the use of Isaiah 7:14 as a "proof text" for the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus.  Some of these are summarized below.

 

1.      Limiting the Power of the Creator?

 

U      A persistent Christian apologist and missionary may attempt to challenge the Jewish perspective by claiming that, in ruling out the possibility that the female in Isaiah 7:14 was a virgin who conceived and remained a virgin (virgo intacta), one places limitations on what G-d can do.

 

Y      According to the Sages of the Talmud, it is possible for a woman to conceive with her virginity remaining intact, though it can occur only through a normal act of intercourse.[2]

 

Jewish polemicists of the medieval period, who feared the retributions that could result from open discussion of this subject, did not attack the doctrine of the "Virgin Birth" directly.  Rather, they used philosophical arguments to reject the idea that G-d could incarnate by impregnating a virgin and fathering an offspring who was G-d Himself.  The noted Jewish polemicist and geographer, Rabbi Abraham Farissol (1452-1528) wrote[3]:

 

We cannot deny the possibility that God, may He be blessed,, could create a creation in a virgin, even one whom no man has known, For He created everything out of nothing.  Rather, we deny that there was a need for incarnation.

 

In other words, it is not a question of whether G-d is able to do this; rather, at issue is the need for self-incarnation, given that it would, in effect destroy the accepted perspective on G-d, which excludes His incarnation.

 

2.      Concerning the Rendition of  (ha'almah) in the Septuagint (LXX)

 

U      Christian apologists and missionaries argue that the LXX renders the Hebrew term  (ha'almah) as ^parqenoz  (parthenos) in Greek, which means "a virgin".  Surely, they argue, the Rabbis who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek would know how to correctly translate this term.

 

Y      The Jewish response is based on evidence available today, which has convinced scholars (of all persuasions) that the LXX is a Church-rendered Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.  It is not the original Septuagint, which was a 3^rd century B.C.E translation into Greek of only the Torah (the Five Books of Moses), commissioned by King Ptolemy II of Egypt, and which was carried out by 72 of the most learned, bi-lingual Jewish scholars of the time.  The evidence includes:

 

§         Historical accounts (the writings of Josephus and St. Jerome, the Letter of Aristeas)

§         Scriptural items (statements in the Talmud, errors of omission in the LXX)

§         Linguistic data (comparative linguistic analysis of the Greek in the LXX vis-à-vis the Greek spoken in the 3^rd century B.C.E)

§         Inconsistencies in the way the Greek word ^parqenoz  (parthenos) is translated in the KJV (e.g., at Gen 24:43 it is rendered "the virgin", while at Gen 38:24 it is rendered "the maid", so that it does not exclusively mean "a virgin")

§         The Church-rendered LXX defeats the standard Christian argument as well.  The claim is that, in Isaiah 7:14,  (almah) is translated into Greek as ^parqenoz  (parthenos), which, it is claimed, means "a virgin".  Yet, the LXX is not consistent in its transation of this noun.  The LXX renditions of all seven instances of  (almah) in all seven instances in the Hebrew Bible are shown in Table III.E.1-1.

 

Table III.E.1-1 – LXX renderings of  (almah)

 

Reference	Greek Translation in LXX(1)
Genesis 24:43; Isaiah 7:14	parqenoz (parthenos)
Exodus 2:8; Psalms 68:26 [67:26 in LXX] Proverbs 30:19; Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8	neanis (neanis)

(1) Noun shown in "root" form, i.e., singular and without prepositions

 

§         According to the Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, the noun parqenoz (parthenos) may have any of the following meanings:  "a maid", "a maiden", "a virgin", "a girl".  The noun neanis (neanis) is shown in the same source to have any of the following meanings: "a young woman", "a girl", "a maiden".  The application in the Church-rendered LXX of two distinctly different terms to the Hebrew noun  (almah), rules out a definitive proof that this term exclusively means "a virgin".  [The LXX rendition of the masculine counter-part of  (almah), namely,  (elem), is neaniskoz (neaniskos), which, according to the Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, has the following meanings: "a youth", "a young man".  Clearly, there is no positive indication of virginity in any of these terms.

§         According to the LXX, Genesis 34:3 also defeats the claim that parqenoz (parthenos) is used exclusively for "a virgin".  Dinah, who was raped by Sh^echem, is referred to as a parqenoz (parthenos) after being raped, which is contrary to the claim on the exclusivity of parqenoz (parthenos) for idenfying "a virgin".

 

3.      Relevance of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) Cognate Languages

 

U      This Christian apologetic and missionary argument utilizes the terminology found in several of the ANE Cognate Languages (Akkadian, Egyptian, Sumerian, Ugaritic, and others) to conclude that  (almah) is just as acceptable as, and probably even more accurate than  (b^etulah), for conveying the idea that a young female is "a virgin".  For example, a published note by the late Professor Cyrus H. Gordon[4] on the use of  (almah) in Isaiah 7:14, is often cited to support this claim.

 

Y      The Jewish response identifies several reasons why references to these extra-Biblical sources have no place here.

 

Christian apologists and missionaries typically adhere to religious fundamentalism, which generally includes the notion of sola scriptura, Latin for by scripture alone, the idea of singular authority of scripture.  In other words, scripture (the Bible) is the only infallible rule to be used for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines.  Yet, in order to defend their interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, apologists and missionaries are prepared to reach outside the bounds of their Bible and rely on the ANE languages of pagans.  They cannot have it both ways!

 

While Judaism rejects the concept of sola scriptura, in the case of Isaiah 7:14, since it is a topic from within the Hebrew Bible, there is no need to go outside the Hebrew Bible in order to demonstrate the validity of the Jewish position.  Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a powerful analytical tool for supporting the Jewish interpretation against the claims made by Christian apologists and missionaries.

 

Most people are not experts in ANE languages, the required information is not always readily available, and, in addition, an enormous amount of research is usually necessary.  In the case of Professor Gordon's published note, the sources, i.e., the Ugaritic material and related commentary by the noted linguist and archaeologist were located, obtained, and analyzed.  An analysis of Professor Gordon’s comments on an Ugaritic poem[5], shows that:

 

§         The Christian analysis quotes only a small portion of the analysis by Professor Gordon.  When the entire published note is taken in its proper context, together with the text of the poem in question, the claimed inference is, at best, a stretch of the true meaning.

§         Given Isaiah’s stance against idolatry, the use by the Prophet of terminology from a language and poem that represent an idolatrous culture is highly doubtful.

 

II.            Summary

 

The analysis of Isaiah 7:14 presented in this essay demonstrates, both grammatically and contextually, that no valid connection can be established between the Christian doctrine of the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus and Isaiah 7:14, and how Christian apologetic and missionary claims concerning this so-called "proof text" from the Hebrew Bible are effectively countered and refuted.

 

The claim that Isaiah 7:14 is the so-called "proof text" of the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus is merely and attempt to retrofit Christology into the Hebrew Bible.  This verse is part of an historical event, described in detail in the seventh chapter in the Book of Isaiah, something that has already occurred and cannot apply to an event claimed to have taken place some seven and one half centuries later.

Return to Part I: Is Isaiah 7:14 A Messianic Prophecy?