Friday, December 14, 2012

Do More than Complain about Child Abuse

SPD’s Detective Bob Shilling has tracked down some of our state’s and nation’s worst sex offenders, written or co-authored numerous laws to help protect our children, and in the process has made a name for himself as one of the world’s most sought after experts in catching child predators. When the world’s most prestigious crime fighting organization, Interpol, had a position available to lead their Crimes Against Children Group, they offered the position to Detective Shilling. Detective Shilling was honored and after speaking to his family, accepted. This is the first time in Interpol history that a municipal level police detective has been offered this highly distinguished  position. Detective Shilling will also become the first American to hold this position.
The position coordinates efforts for the agency’s 190 member countries and helps implement best practices globally. SPD, the Mayor’s office and the City Council have all supported Detective Shilling’s appointment to this prestigious position and now it’s our turn as a community.
Detective Shilling is required by Interpol, located in Lyon, France, to secure funding for his living expenses for the three year assignment. SPD will continue to pay his salary. Typically the federal government covers funding for Americans assigned to Interpol, but will not be doing so for Detective Shilling. The SPD is proud and honored that one of their own would be tasked to lead the worldwide coordination of stopping and preventing crimes against children, and have pledged to support the best individual for the job. Therefore, the Seattle Police Foundation is collecting donations to support the required living expense fund for the position. Donations will be given to the SPD as a grant to assist with this requirement. No funds will go directly to Detective Shilling. Any donations received over the amount needed will go towards supporting SPD’s efforts to prevent and stop crimes against children.


Funding was secured for Bob Shilling to take the position:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Who will emerge from Bethlehem?

Michah 5:1(2)

Matthew 2:6

"Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small to be among the thousands of Judah, but from you someone will emerge for Me to be a ruler over Israel; and his origins will be from early times, from days of old."

The book of Matthew relates that when the Magi from the east came looking for the Messiah, Herod inquired to the sages of his day to determine where he would be born, so that he could direct them in the right direction, and he in turn could determine the exact location of the potential threat to his throne. Those sages, we are told, cited this passage from Michah as predicting that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. This verse is a favorite of Christian apologists and is referenced in nearly any list of verses they cite as predicting the Nazarene.1

To examine the validity of this inference, we must ask what does "from you" really indicate? While the Christian Bible and its apologists take it for granted that this refers to a place of birth, it is not that simple. Obviously the passage is lacking any specific verbiage indicating birth. Rather we are presented with the term מׅמְּך "from you", where the prefix מׅ is identical to the one found in Hosea 11:1 וּמִמִּצְרַים "and out of [or since] Egypt". One might recall that although the term is the same in the Hosea 11:1 passage, there it is taken to simply imply that the Nazarene lived in Egypt, not that he was born there. Similarly we cannot conclude that, based on the verse in Michah, the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem. With such an ablaitive implication the most we could conclude that he lived there, or perhaps even just made a significant visit.2

The truth is that when we are speaking of Bethlehem-Ephratah we are not talking about the location per se, but a family. In the early Biblical period the land was to be divided up according to family. Michah says that Bethlehem-Ephratah is too small to be counted among the "thousands" of Israel, which the NIV correctly translates as "clan". The term "thousand," אלף, is an extended family unit. The smaller is a "father’s house" אב בית (see Bamidbar 2:2), related households constitute a "thousand" or "clan" אלף, and the clans combine to form the tribe. So as it turns out, the term "from you" is related to birth, not the location of the birth, but rather the lineage. "From" in the sense of spatial source can have a variety of meanings, but understanding that the significance of Bethlehem-Ephratah is as family rather than a place narrows down its implication. The verse is not expressing surprise at the location the Moshiach will be born, but at the humble origins of the Davidic dynasty. Similarly, when presented with his divine mission, Gideon initially objected "I beg of You, my Lord, with what shall I save Israel? Behold, my thousand is the most impoverished of Manasseh, and I am the youngest of my father’s house." (Judges 6:15).

In response it has been argued, "It is interesting to note that the Soncino Press commentary goes on to suggest, ‘Not that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but that his origin of old, through David, would be Bethlehem.’ However, it begs the question: if the prophet meant ancestry and not geography, why would such a statement be necessary?" ( The answer is by referencing Bethlehem-Ephratah, David’s family line, the verse is essentially identifying the individual being discussed as the Mashiach. Would one ask why Isaiah found it necessary to say that "A staff will emerge from the stump of Jesse" (Isaiah 11:1)? It is the subsequent verses in which we see the Mashiach’s activities, and once again we see that they were not fulfilled by the Nazarene. As we noted elsewhere, "It is noteworthy that many of the verses cited by Christians do have these indicators. The indicator, for example tribal affiliation or ancestors, are often cited as the prophecy which is fulfilled. Meanwhile the rest of the prophecy, containing the more significant issue of Mashiach’s activities". The passage from Michah goes on to describe in detail how the Messiah will assure peace from all of Israel’s adversaries and the return of the Children of Israel. Neither of these were accomplished by the Nazarene and have not been fulfilled to this day, yet they stand as the central mission of the true Messiah.

In addition to the birthplace of the Messiah, Christian interpreters generally 3 see another lesson from this passage, that the Messiah is eternal. Although this interpretation was used as early as Justin Martyr, it is not made in the New Testament. In fact the second half of the verse from which this is derived isn’t even included in Matthew’s quote. Insofar as the idea that the Nazarene is eternal is central to traditional Christian belief, it is more than a little surprising that Matthew would neglect to use the Hebrew Bible to establish this in favor of his birthplace.

The phrase in question is "and his origins (וּמוֹצאֹתׇיו) will be from early times, from days of old (מׅימֵי עוֹלם)." The last word in this verse is often, and correctly, translated as eternal or forever. Furthermore the classic Jewish commentator Rashi, based on a Midrash, comments that the Messiah’s name was established prior to creation. What then, does it mean that his "origins" are from days of old/eternity? We must first determine what "origin" refers too. The word "origin" shares the same root (יצא) as the early expression that the Messiah would "go out" from Bethlehem. In other words the Messiah would go forth from Bethlehem and his going forth would be from days of old/eternity. The second clause is referring to the same as the first, which gives further evidence that it doesn’t refer to birth per se.

To further clarify it is useful to know the phrase ימֵי עוֹלם "days of old", is used elsewhere in the T’nakh and does not indicate eternity.4 In fact only a few pages later it is used in Michah 7:14 in a request that God care for His people like he did in the "days of old". Likewise in Malachi 3:4 it is requested that God accept the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem like "the days of old". Clearly the term is being used in reference to a distant time, days of old, but not eternity past. I have seen an argument to the effect that since these other verses have the prefix כ they bear a different meaning than the phrase in our verse.5 This claim is simply incorrect, the prefix כ and מ do have different meanings, "from" and "like" respectively, but just like their corresponding English prepositions they do not magically alter of the subsequent words or phrases.

We should also note that, whether in Hebrew or English, the word "eternal" can refer to a finite time period just as it can refer to an infinite one. For example, when we speak of someone having eternal life, like in Daniel 12:2 (חַיֵי עוֹלׇם), we in no way intend that they lived from eternity past, uncreated and without a beginning. Unlike God, whose eternity is an infinite one, other uses of eternal are confined to the temporal world. The initial description of his "origins" as being "from early times" further suggests a temporal period. With this in mind we can understand Rashi’s embrace of the Midrashic interpretation of this verse. It is granted the term "days of old" clearly does not literally mean forever ago, but the term עוֹלם generally does have a much more expansive meaning than its use in this phrase. Even still, unless applied to God Himself we have no reason to understand it to apply beyond the realm of time. As such we can see in the choice of this word that from the beginning of time the Mashiach’s role, his "Name", has been part of God’s plan. The plain meaning, however, is that from the dynasty of David the son of Yishai of Beith Lechem, which started in the "days of old", the Mashaich will emerge and redeem Israel.

Briefly I would like to touch on a couple of variations on this argument. J. Vernon McGee alleges, without any Scriptural or historical evidence that "No members of the family of David were living in Bethlehem any longer."6 Yirmeyahu Ben David argues,7 "The Israeli government has given Beit Lekhem to the Arabs! Therefore, only Ribi Yehoshua can ever fulfill this messianic prophecy!" It seems more than a little ironic that only a few decades ago the Israeli didn’t exist, and many people thought it never would, and yet people still argue that the day can never come when a Jew could be born in Bethlehem?! God isn’t limited to "anointing" people in the past as the Messiah simply because the current political situation isn’t conducive to His prophecies!

A popular approach is defending the use of this passage by appealing to Jewish sources. In this vein Alfred Edersheim writes, "The well-known passage, Micah 5:2, is admittedly Messianic. So in the Targum, and the Pirqe de R. Eliez. C. 3, and by later Rabbis." (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix 9, page 1005). Of course this statement does not address whether these sources consider it to refer to the Messiah’s birthplace, and as a rule while such sources interpret the verse as Messianic they do not interpret it as referring to his birthplace. Others are more assertive in their claim: "Even the Talmud explains Micah 5:2, as declaring that Bethlehem should be Christ's birthplace" (Barton Warren Johnson,  And while this could be an example of someone over-zealously inferring a Messianic understanding of Michah 5 to mean it refers to the birthplace of the Mashiach, even more specific claims are made: "Here is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Talmud, which is a collection of Judaism-related writings completed about 1600 years ago: ‘The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah.’ - Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a." ( and "The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah." -Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a" (, originally compiled by Ben Burton of MessianicArt).

The Talmud Yerushalmi is not the most accessible work, and the method of citation is not as consistent as that of the Talmud Bavli. Notice that the last two citations of the Talmud are identical, both in their translation and transliteration, suggesting that we are not dealing with independent research and translation. Although neither gives credit, I am personally acquainted with writer of the later source which I also know has been up for close to, but not quite, ten years (as of 2009). While very ambitious, at the time he was not equipped to personally verify the sources to assure the accurately reflected the meaning of the original, or if even existed. To his credit, when I prompted him he did put up a disclaimer that some citations may be out of context.

The citation given by these sources is insufficient to locate the quote, and a less careful person would conclude it was fabricated, but with a little online research I discovered the following: "The Jerusalem Talmud (y. Ber.2.4*) comments, ‘... King Messiah is born...he is from the royal palace of Bethlehem.’"… "*As cited in Alfred Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Hendrickson edition, 1993) p. 143, who says that ‘in an imaginary conversation between an Arab and a Jew, Bethlehem is authoritatively named as Messiah's birthplace.’" (, though the phraseology quoted from the Talmud is not supplied by Edersheim and it seems as though an intermediary source may have been utilized.) The "5a" in the earlier citations, appears in Edersheim as a qualification of the 2:4 in the latter. The earlier citations omitted a detail which placed the quote significantly later than what they implied. In fact, this narrative from chapter 2:4 falls out on page 25b when the pages are enumerated from the beginning.

But while I cannot blame a Christian apologist for being a bit excited over this passage, it is not a game changer. First and foremost, it doesn’t cite Michah 5:1 as the source for the Moshiach being born in Bethlehem. In fact it gives no indication that the Mashiach will be born in Bethlehem at all, is says he was born in "Biras Malka" of Bethlehem, on the day the Temple was destroyed, and that his name was Menachem ben Chezkiahu. The story clearly wasn’t meant to teach a historical event but a lesson about the Messiah. Just pause and reflect on the quote as cited above, "he is from the royal palace of Bethlehem." Michah doesn’t mention anything about a royal palace and there is and was no royal palace in Bethlehem to be born in! While David was from Bethlehem he ruled from Jerusalem. The Talmud’s narrative isn’t telling us about the Messiah’s physical birthplace but rather like each detail it is intended to convey a message about the Mashiach and his mission. The notion of being born in the royal palace of Bethlehem clearly alludes to the Davidic lineage of the Mashiach rather than a location. The birthplace in the story is symbolic of his Davidic heritage. This is, after all, consistent with our reading of Michah 5:1 although the verse is not being cited.

We have noted that although Christians, following the lead of their Scriptures, understand the verse in Michah 5:1 as speaking of the birthplace of the Mashiach, the language of the verse itself doesn’t indicate birthplace. In the same language is used in Hosea 11:1 which is (mis)understood by Christian’s as indicating that the Nazarene merely left a location which he lived in but was not his birthplace. Bethlehem’s significance is as the birthplace of King David, whose extended family was it’s residents. Despite its relative insignificance the royal line, the Messianic line, was to descend from it. It is in this respect that the Mashiach and all David’s descendants were "from" Bethelehem. The Mashiach, as its legitimate heir, will establish a kingdom which hearkens back to the golden "days of old" when David reigned, God shepherded His people, and their offerings found His favor, as God intended he would from the beginning of Creation.

[1] "And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: "And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people." Justin Martyr, The First Apology, chapter 34 ( "And again the prophet Micah speaks of the place where Christ should be born, that it should be in Bethlehem of Judæa, saying thus: And thou, Bethlehem of Judæa, art thou the least among the princes of Judah? for out of, thee shall come a prince who shall feed my people Israel. " Irenaeus, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, page 63, (

"In the fifth chapter of his book, Micha records one of the most specific predictions about the coming Messiah. His birth place was to be in an obscure village in the province of Judea in Palestine; the city that King David had been born in, Bethlehem" Hal Lindsey, The Promise, page 58. "Some of the most important prophecies about Christ accurately predicted [his] birthplace (Mal. 5:2)" Dan Story, Defending Your Faith, page 78. "The Hebrew scriptures accurately foretold hundreds of years in advance that this Promised One would be born in Bethlehem….Michah 5:2) Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, page 56. "We must not be confused by all these places and deem them contradictory, for all were touched by [him] in the course of [his] divinely planned life. As Michah prophesied, Jesus was born in Bethlehem…" Herbert Lockyer, All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible, page 64. "Micah named the place where Christ was to be born seven hundred years before [he] was born there." J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible with J. Vernon McGee vol. 3 page 790. "Micah 5:2…Since Micah lived in the time of King Hezekiah, he made this prophecy some eight centuries before Jesus." Islam Revealed, Dr. Anis A. Shorrosh, page 122.

[2 ] I would like to again highlight our earlier citation “We must not be confused by all these places and deem them contradictory, for all were touched by [him] in the course of [his] divinely planned life. As Michah prophesied, Jesus was born in Bethlehem…” Herbert Lockyer, All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible, page 64. Implicit in his attempt at “clarifying” the prophecies ascribed to the Nazarene is the recognition that this passage does not specify that his birth would take place in Bethlehem in contrast to others which merely indicate areas he lived and ministered.

[3] While I have not extensively reviewed the question, it is noteworthy that the Watchtower publication cited above does not mention this interpretation of Michah 5:1, nor does Yirmeyahu Ben David. Both reject the traditional conception of the Trinity and the divinity of the Messiah.

[4] I must acknowledge that these verses were [most likely] brought to my attention from Rabbi Singer’s “Let’s Get Biblical” Study Guide, page 121.
[5] J.P. Holding, Tovia Singer on 5:2, [Dead Link]. An apparent quote from the article has been preserved on another site’s message board, “What Singer calls the "same expression" is NOT the same expression at all! Micah speaks of "from 'olam". The rest speak of "from days of 'olam." ( It has been a long time since I read this argument but based on this quote I believe my presentation may be even more plausible than the actual one since he seems to be denying that the word day even occurs. I would like to think that the article has been removed since it was recognized that it was fundamentally unsound.
[6] Ibid
[7], I recently saw a similar argument by an early Church authority, but I’ve had difficulty relocating it since I did not properly make note of it.

Monday, December 3, 2012

A Resurrected Mashiach?

A Resurrected Mashiach?

In Christian theology mankind's sole hope for salvation is based on the death and resurrection of the Messiah. The Nazarene's death is interpreted not as extinguishing any possibility of him being the Messiah but rather the central fulfillment of the messianic role. In contrast Judaism rejects the notion that one who has died without fulfilling all the prophecies could be considered Mashiach, and by no means must the Messiah die and be resurrected. But to support their beliefs missionaries appeal to the Talmud for support for a "resurrected Messiah" where we read, "Rav Nachman said, 'If from the living [the Mashiach] would be like me....' Rav said, 'If from the living he would be like Rabbenu HaKadosh, if from the dead he would be like Daniel." (Sanhedrin 98b)

Here we are presented with a passage from an authoritative Jewish text which seems to clearly suggest the possibility that Mashiach could come back from the dead. Furthermore it is in the middle of the primary section where the Talmud discusses the Mashaich. While it may superficially appear to support the missionaries perspective closer analysis will show that it does not.

The first noteworthy point is that unlike many other passages where Chazal (Our Sages) discuss Mashiach, or other topics, no scripture is linked to support the idea that Mashiach would be from the dead. The Gemara doesn't even link a text midrashically. There is zero evidence to suggest these Sages interpreted any Scriptural passage similar to the Christian understanding that Messiah would die and be resurrected. Quite to the contrary, since Chazal typically offered support from Scripture when ever possible their omission of Scriptural references suggested that they where not basing this point off of any specific Bible verses.

This is of little surprise since the topic of the passage clearly was not to establish that Mashiach was going to rise from the dead. The passage was to offer different example of what the Mashiach would be like. They where not offering an opinion or tradition that Mashiach would in fact be from among the dead, but speculating on who he would be like among those who had already passed away. As we see they give the equal possibility that the Mashaich be from among the living. The discussion of Mashiach being from the dead was hypothetical, and quite possibly simply for the sake of argument. The point was simply to describe the character of the Mashiach and to that degree it would be perfectly reasonable to compare him to those who have already died, even though in fact they did not actually accept the possibility that he would be from the dead. While one might assume that under such a circumstance if they felt there was reason to object to the notion of Mashaich coming from the dead they would have taken the occasion to do so, but insofar as it is a peripheral issue to the Mashiach's character I am not certain we can expect it.

Whenever missionaries appeal to sources outside the T'nakh one must be suspicious about their ability to do so using the T'nakh alone. The idea of a resurrected Mashaich is not found in T'nakh and our passage from the Talmud implicitly attests to that fact. Chazal did not discuss a mesorah, a tradition, they received that the Mashiach would be form the dead, but offered examples both living and dead to indicate the character of Mashaich. Furthermore it demonstrates that while Chazal felt certain historical figures where worthy of being the Mashiach they did not consider it appropriate to identify them with being the Mashiach since the Messianic prophecies have yet to be fulfilled (at very least).

Friday, November 30, 2012

Who would Die for a Lie?

Why would the disciples die for a lie?

When challenged to verify the historicity of the Gospel's account of the Nazarene's life, in particular the resurrection, Christians often appeal to the "eyewitness accounts" of the Apostles. Furthermore, they argue, not only did the Apostles witness the events about which they preached but they died for doing so. They contend it is unreasonable to assume that someone would risk, even forfeit, their own life for propagating an account that they know to be fictitious. They reason that they clearly offered up their own lives as martyrs because they where certain of the truth of the Gospel. Their deaths provide us the proof that their testimony is reliable.

I would certainly concede that people generally would not risk their lives for a lie. But I'm not so sure how well this holds true when one has built their entire life around a lie. I submit that my doubt about such evidence is not unique. In truth, when they themselves are put in the role of anti missionaries in response to Mormons, Christians have rejected such arguments. Bill McKeever writes "It is highly possible for a person to die for something he knew in the beginning was not the truth. A lie, repeated often enough, becomes as truth to the teller." (Answering Mormons' Questions page 119). The Apostles were, if you will, uneducated "commoners" according to the Christian Bible (Acts 4:13). Regardless of its veracity or lack there of, the "Gospel" propelled these men from obscurity to a position of influencing hundreds, even thousands of people. It is certainly possible that they may have considered such influence worth risking their life and that loosing their life might be preferable to them than loosing the notoriety they had achieved. This is particularly true when one considers that they may have fabricated events that they believed were true or that they reflected spiritual truths. In doing so they may have remained absolutely devoted to the cause, without ulterior motives. Their dedication may not have been limited to dying for the Gospel but to fabricating eyewitness evidence for what they sincerely believed was true. So rather than being a simple choice between them believing their words or willingly spreading lies it may very well be that they believed what they taught, even if they knew some of the details where not honest.

Furthermore, we must recognize the “New Testament” records that when the disciples encountered the Nazarene they did not recognize him, “As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.” (Luke 24:15-16), “At this she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize it was Jesus.” (John 20:14), “Afterward Jesus appeared to them in different form to two of them while they were walking in the country.” (Mark 16:12). Recall that earlier we are told that there were those who claimed that the Nazarene himself was actually John the Baptist resurrected from the dead, “King Herod heard about this, for Jesus' name had become well known. Some were saying ‘John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” (Mark 6:14). At most we could conclude that the disciples had encounters with someone they did not recognize, but eventually came to believe, or “recognize”, as being the Nazarene.

Then consider how certain we really are that the Apostles died for their beliefs? The fact is that for the most part the fate that befell the apostles is not mentioned in the Christian Bible (even if we where to take it at face value). Only James the son of Zebedee is listed as having been martyred (Acts.12:2). As a matter of fact all but a handful of the 12 disappear from the Biblical narrative shortly after the resurrection. What we are left with then is the testimony provided by Church tradition. And these traditions are at times conflicting with each other. Furthermore at times they are fanciful and conflict with Christian teaching. For example one early account regarding the death of Peter, of which I regretfully do not know the source, relates that after escaping death in Rome he encountered the Nazarene on the road. He inquired on where the Nazarene was going to which the Nazarene replied that he was going to be re-crucified in Rome for Peter. At this Peter himself returns to Rome and submits to crucifixion.

Finally we must consider what might have resulted from the Apostles recanting their story. Could the Apostles have really trusted that if they where to recant that they would not be executed? The Roman government was interested in suppressing a sect which they saw as a threat. Would the leader of such a group really have the option of walking away quietly simply by saying he had made everything up? And if they did recant would their followers accept a report that they had? Would they believe a renunciation of Christianity made under duress? And on what basis would we expect them to perpetuate the story of their confession made under duress?

What we have been presented is a faulty dilemma, either the Apostles where telling the truth or they died for something they knew was a lie. In truth it is possible that they would die for a lie because they came to accept their own lie as truth. Or they may have seen their fabrications as secondary to the Gospel which they did believe was truth. Nor is it clear that their fate is known to us or that recanting would have been of any use. Nor is it certain that if they did admit they fabricated their testimony that we would be aware of it. So while this does not in and of itself refute the testimony of the Apostles, we have shown that there is no reason we must accept it at face value.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

On Theodicy and Emunah Peshutta

One topic which, to my recollection, has had very little attention on this blog  is the question why bad things happen to good people, and the converse. The closest we have come is asking Why would a Good Person make a Bad Argument (Supporting a True Conclusion)?, which isn't really that similar. The reason for this omission is fairly straightforward, its because the question isn't one which bothers me that much on an intellectual level.

On an emotional level it can bother me a great deal at times, as I alluded to here.

To me the response to the question is a quintessential example of emunah peshutta, simple faith, and particularly my understanding of emunah peshutta. If we have reason to believe that there is a Creator (which I believe we do) and we have reason to believe that He gave us the Torah (which I believe we do) then we should take Him at His word that He is beneficent and accept that while it may not be obvious how, the world is ultimately just.

Of course that isn't the end of the story, there are many hashkafic issues that can, and probably should, be considered. Certainly there are other aspects of this question that some may find more comfort in while they actually experience suffering, but I believe they all are predicated on this fundamental idea.

Monday, November 26, 2012

How was the Glory of the Second Temple Greater than that of the First?

Haggai 2:9

"The glory of this later Temple will be greater than [that of] the first, said Hashem, Master of Legions; and I will grant peace to this place – the word of Hashem, Mater of Legions."

Time and again we have seen that the verses cited by apologists to support the claim that the Nazarene is the Messiah are either referring to an entirely different subject in their primary contextual meaning, or have significant predictions yet to be fullfilled (which Christians postpone until a future date). Logicially it is very difficult ( I would say impossible) to formulate a coherent argument where such verses constitute evidence for accepting Christianity rather than their being dependent upon belief in Christian teachings. One attempt at circumventing this problem is to suggest that there is no other option, the Messiah had to have come before the Second Temple was destroyed. After all the Second Temple was supposed to be greater than the First Temple, since the First Temple had the Divine Presence the Second could only be greater if it had the Messiah:

Khajai ha-Nâvi prophesied (2.7-9): "גדול יהיה כבוד הבית הזה האחרון מן-הראשון (Greater shall be the Kâvod of this latter House than the First).
Torâh documented the withdrawal of the Shәkhinâh from the Beit ha-Miqdâsh hâ-Rishon in Yәkhëzqeil 9.3; 10.4, 19; 11.22-23. It never returned to the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini.
While the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini had "a" Mizbeiakh, it lacked the Eish mi-liphnei ha-Sheim that would have made it the legitimate שלחן (see Artscroll Yechezkel not, p. 650, to Yәkhëzqeil 41.22 with Malâkhi 1.12). Five essential elements of kâvod, contained in the First Beit ha-Miqdâsh were never in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh: the Aron Bәrit ha-Sheim, the Kaporët, the Kәruvim, the Eish mi-liphnei ha-Sheim and the Shәkhinâh (Masëkët Yomâ 21b; Artscroll Yechezkel p. 691).
Yet, "this latter House" was destroyed in 70 C.E. without any of these five missing elements of kâvod ever having been in it!!!
Therefore, since "this latter House" no longer exists and these five essential elements of kâvod were never in it, the only possibility that this prophecy can ever be true is if the Mâshiakh was the Greater kâvod in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh.
Ribi Yәhoshua, who taught in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh, is the only possible candidate to fulfill that prophecy.( Yirmeyahu Ben David,

Similarly Messianic Apologist Michael Brown cites Yoma 21b with respect to the aspects that the Second Beith Hamikdash (Temple) lacked which the First Beith HaMikdash did not. He asks, "How then was this Temple to be specially marked by 'peace,' and , more important, how was its glory to surpass the glory of the First Temple?" (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol.1, page 77).

Regarding the aspect of the prophecy where God said He would grant the Temple peace I see no remotely plausible way to suggest that the Nazarene presence in the Beith HaMikdash constituted a fulfillment of this promise. One must recall that the plans to rebuild the Temple were met with significant opposition. The book of Ezra records "Then, as soon as the text of King Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehu, Shimshai the scribe and their cohorts, they went in haste to Jerusalem to the Jews and halted them with force and power. The work of the Temple of God in Jerusalem was thus halted and remained halted until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia." (Ezra 4:23-24). The book of Haggai begins in the second year of the reign of Darius. Ezra continues,

Haggai the prophet and Zechariah son of Iddo the prophet prophesied to the Jews who were in Judah and in Jerusalem, in the name of the God of Israel, about them. then Zeruabbabel son of Shealtiel and Jesua son of Jozadok arose and began to build the Temple of God that was in Jerusalem, and with them were the prophets of God, assisting them. At that time Tattenai, governor of the Trans-Euphrates region, approached them, along with Shethar-bozenai and their accomplices. They said this to them, 'Who issued you a decree to construct this building and to lay the foundation for these ramparts. Then they said the following to them, 'What are the names of the persons constructing this building?' But the eye of their God watched over the elders of the Jewish, and [Tattenai and his accomplices] did not halt them until the matter could be brought before Darius, when [Darius and his officials] would write a reply about it. (Ezra 5:1-5)

The people had stalled the rebuilding of the Beith HaMikash on account of the opposition they had encountered. Haggai prophesied that they were to proceed with the rebuilding and that God would grant the place peace. The people acted in obedience with faith in God's promise and when the opposition brought the matter before the king he instructed for the Temple to be rebuilt and for their opponents not to prevent them from doing so.(Ezra 6:3-12).Clearly we see that the Second Temple was not immune from trouble, the peace our passage spoke of was to calm the immediate concerns about rebuilding the Beith HaMikdash.
The glory being considered is clearly the physical grandeur of the building.

"The purpose of the passage is to console the people regarding their second temple, which was nothing in comparison with the first (vv.2-3)...God encourages the builders of the second temple not to despair over its humble beginnings. The "latter glory" will exceed "the former" declares the Lord. The "former" refers clearly to Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6). The "latter glory" may refer either to the second temple or the millennial temple. The Temple rebuild by the restoration community was later refurbished by Herod. The temple mount was expanded to about thirty-five acres to accommodate teh fabulous remodeling that was eventaully completed shortly before its destruction by the Romans (A.D. 70)." (J. Cadrl Laney, Answers to Tough Questions from Every Book of the Bible A Survey of Problem Passages and Issues from Every Book of the Bible, page 174).
Although Brown contends "the Scriptures are very clear about the nature of the glory of the First Temple: The supernatural presence of God was there."(Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, page 146.), in verse 3 God addresses the elders who "saw this house in its former glory". Unlike the physical grandeur of the Temple, the Divine Glory appeared in the Holy of Holies and was not something publicly visible. Nor does Scripture limit its interest in the First Temple to the spiritual but also spends a great deal of time describing its physical grandeur (see 1 Kings 6). Furthermore immediately prior to our verse God declares "The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine" (vs. 8, Judaica Press). Indeed in a few centuries King Herod would undertake a massive remodel of the Second Temple about which Chazal (Our Sage) said, "Whoever did not see Herod's building never saw a beautiful edifice." (Bava Bathra 4a, translation from Judaica Press' commentary to Haggai 2:9).

Although Michael Brown claimed that there are "several compelling reasons that the reference to the Temple being filled with glory could not be explained with primary reference to the physical rebuilding of the Temple with massive amounts of silver and gold." (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 3, page 146) in truth this flatly contradicts what he already conceded (albeit tucked away in the footnotes) "While it is true that the immediate context in Haggai 2 speaks of physical splendor and earthly wealth, using the Hebrew word kabod (glory) in this sense several factors militate against a purely physical explanation:"(Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol.1, page 223, bolds mine).

Interestingly, while setting up his false dilemma (either the Messiah came during the Second Temple Period or the Bible makes false prophecies) Brown had to exile the fact that the "immediate context in Haggai 2 speaks of physical splendor and earthly wealth" to the footnotes, he also had ignore some of his own dubious hermeneutical methods. First of all according to Michael Brown it is perfectly legitimate for a statement to be uttered about one subject while its fulfillment is found in another subject, for example regarding David's Psalm 16 he writes,

"Actually, it is possible that he looked ahead into the future and saw himself supernaturally preserved from death and decay (as suggested by some of the rabbis, as we have read), but what he was actually seeing was not his own deliverance from death (in reality, resurrection) but rather that of his progeny, the Messiah." (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol.3, page 116).

 Why is it any less legitimate to say that while Haggai saw the Second Beith HaMikdash having a greater glory than the first, "what he was actually seeing was not" the Second Beith HaMikdash but the Third (when the Divine Presence will return and in a degree unparalleled in human history)? Similarly Brown argues,

"The prophets saw the future through a telescope. Things far away in time appeared close. They did not realize that centuries would come and go between their initial prediction and its actual fulfillment." (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, page 191).

To be clear everyone would agree, at least anyone who accepts prophecy and the inspiration of scriptures, that the prophets saw things in the distant future. Michael Brown wishes to extend this possibility to passages which seem to indicate contemporaneous fulfillment, "Did Isaiah see the coming of the Messiah (i.e., a great deliverer) in the context of his very own day?" and "Let's look at Isaiah 9:1-7...where it is predicted that the yoke of the enemy...would be broken by the son of David who was already born." (ibid). 

Perhaps Haggai saw the Third Temple "through a telescope" not realizing that this was the House whose glory would be greater than the First Temple? Or perhaps since "Many biblical prophecies are fulfilled gradually (ibid 190) the physical grandeur of the Second Temple began the fulfillment which will continue with the return of the Ark and the Divine Presence in the Third?

Rather than apply his exegesis methods consistently, Michael Brown dismisses those interpreters who see it as a straight forward prediction of the Third Temple, "Of course such arguments become completely unnecessary when it is realized that the Messiah...came to the Second Temple, right on schedule."(Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol.1, page 223) even though we have seen his own methodology could easily support the same conclusion (with more baggage).

The glory of the Second Temple was the grand renovation which took place under Herod. The context clearly indicates the physical building was the subject under discussion. Christian Apologist's attempt to equate the glory with the occasional presence of the Nazarene is an ad hoc explanation used to construct a false dilemma.

1It is interesting to note that although Yirmeyahu Ben David rejects the Trinity and the divinity of the Messiah, he nevertheless views the casual presence of the Nazarene in the Second Temple as being greater that the Divine Presence being present in the First Temple! This illustrates how even believer's in the Nazarene who do not hold traditional Christian view about the Nazarene's deity still have difficulty not engaging in hero worship and elevating him above the status of other mortals.

2Brown here seems to be engaging in what Osborne calls the "lexical fallacy" by automatically transferring the meaning of "glory" in one context (the glory of Hashem" to that of another (the Temple's glory), "The overemphasis on words to the detriment of context leads to one of the most serious of Barr's criticisms, 'illegitimate totality transfer' (1961:218). After going to so much trouble to find multitudinous meanings and uses for a word, it is hard for the scholar to select just one for the passage. The tendency is to read all or most of them (that is, to transfer the 'totality' of the meanings) into a single passage. such is 'illegitimate,' for no one ever has in mind all or even several of the possible meanings for a term when using it in a particular context." (The Hermeneutical Spiral, page 84).

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Who is the Almah's Son?

Isaiah 7:14

Matthew 1:23

"Therefore my Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the maiden will become pregnant and bear a son, and she will name him Immanuel."

This passage is the first of many used by the Gospel of Matthew to indicate that the Nazarene was predicted in the T'nakh. Accordingly it is the first one that is run across when reading the Christian Bible cover to cover. This prominent position and the importance of the Virgin Birth in Christian theology probably led to this "prophecy" being one of the better known ones applied to the Nazarene. It is also one that Christians go to great lengths to defend as Messianic, with many different approaches taken by different missionaries to resolve the difficulties of such an interpretation.1

A very significant matter to know in this discussion is that the word generally translated as virgin, "almah", does not mean virgin. I don't wish to elaborate on that point at this time, but we will (although to see an extensive argument against translating almah as virgin from a Messianic/Christian apologist see Michael Brown’s Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 3, pages 20-21 with the footnotes). The argument that almah does not mean virgin is well known and Christians have several standard responses, which we will also explore latter. So the first thing I wish to do is show what the passage does mean, and then deal with what it doesn’t. In doing so we will see that regardless of the actual meaning of the word rendered as "virgin", that the passage is not Messianic nor does it refer to the Nazarene. With that, let’s look at the passage in context. After we understand the passage in its context we will be better suited to explore the true meaning of "almah" and it’s proper translation:

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. 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 ...Then Isaiah said, ‘Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The ["virgin"] will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid to waste.’" Isaiah 7:1-2,13-16. (NIV)

One may recall that after King Solomon (Sh’lomo HaMelech) passed away the nation of Israel split into two kingdoms. The southern kingdom was ruled by the House of David and was know as Judah (Yehudah). The capital of Judah was Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) and Achaz the son of Yotham was its king. The northern kingdom was known as Israel (Yisrael) and/or Ephraim. The capital of the northern kingdom Israel was Samaria and Pekach the son of Remaleyahu was its king. Chapter 7 opens with an alliance made between Aram and Israel to attack Judah. Hashem proceeds to tell the king of Judah that a child will be born as a symbol that the alliance would not be successful. To find out whom the child in the passage refers to one need only turn the page to Isaiah chapter eight.

A comparison of the two reveals the obvious intent of chapter seven is the child mentioned in chapter eight (the numbers identify the root word identified in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, a popular Bible reference among Christians).

Chapter 7 verse 14 reads "The maiden will become pregnant (2030) and bear a son (3205), and she will name him Immanuel."While chapter 8 verse 3 is "I approached the prophetess, and she conceived (2030) and bore (3205) a son."

Notice that 8:3 uses the same language to describe the birth of Isaiah's son as was used in 7:14, one describing future action and the other describing completed action.

In 7:16, "For before the child knows to abhor evil and choose good, the land of the two kings you fear will be abandoned." The two kings they feared being kings Pekach and Rezin from Israel and Aram (see 7:1, 2).
Then compare 8:4, "For before the child knows how to say ‘My father’ and ‘My mother’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria will be carried off before the king of Assyria."

Damascus was the capital of Aram, and we mentioned earlier that Samaria was the capital of the northern kingdom, Israel. In 8:4 we see that before Isaiah’s son would mature that Aram and Israel would be fall, just as was said concerning the child of 7:14 in slightly different language, but with the same meaning.

7:14 "and she will name him Immanuel."
Then 8 "and its wingspan will be the full breadth of your land, O Immanuel."

These two verses are the only two verses in T’nakh which use this contraction.

The child foretold in 7:14 is none other than the child born in the next chapter, apparently to Isaiah and his wife (i.e. "the prophetess"). It is not uncommon to find Christian commentator’s who recognize that this is the simple meaning of the text in context. The NIV Study Bible concedes that the subject of Isaiah 7 is the son born to Isaiah in chapter 8. Messianic Apologist Michael Brown writes, "In that light, it is interesting to note that the promise of yet another child of promise, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in chapter 8, seems to take the place of the Immanuel prophecy in chapter 7 in terms of the immediate historical context spoken there."2 Radio apologist Hank Hanegraaff, "The Bible Answer Man", writes, "First, the prophecy in Isaiah chapter seven--'the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel'--was fulfilled in Isaiah chapter eight. As Isaiah makes clear, this prophecy was fulfilled when Isaiah 'went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son' named Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (8:3)." (The Complete Bible Answer Book, page 220).Still others go so far as applying the adjacent verses to the historical context while singling out verse 14 and 5 alone as Messianic, "In Isaiah 7:14-15 Christ is immediately in the foreground, but verse 16 ("for before the child shall know how to refuse evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorest will be forsaken of both her kings") is a local reference."3 This despite the fact, as we have shown, that the exact same language used in verse 14 is used in reference to the conception of Isaiah's son.

And of course this opinion is prominent among those held by the Jewish sages such as Rashi who understands Isaiah 7:14 as referring to Isaiah's son born in chapter 8. The context is clear and Christians who wish to maintain a legitimate interpretive methodology accept this explanation and seek alternative ways of applying it to the Nazarene (although in doing so they cripple the "predictive" power of the passage with respect to its application to the Nazarene).

Almah, Virgin or Young Woman?

Now, as we mentioned before, the passage does not say virgin. The Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah; the word here is almah which means young woman, or "maiden". To this point there are a whole host of objections, so I apologize if I stumble in my attempt to systematically respond. One possible objection, which I surprisingly have not seen, is that there is a comment by Rashi that seemingly equates the two terms. While Messianic Christians often find Jewish literature an exciting and new frontier for evidence of their claims, the truth is that this has been done for centuries, and more often than not these sources are recycled from earlier Christian works. With as much time and effort that has been put into such research, the prominence of Rashi, and the infrequency of the term almah I am actually quite amazed that I have never seen this Rashi mentioned.4 Commenting on Shir HaShirim (Song of Songs) 1:3, Rashi explains "maidens (almaoth) as "virgins" (batholiths). What then, shall we make of the objection that almah doesn’t mean virgin?

First let us consider what if the term almah meant virgin? It would not imply a virgin birth, or more importantly conception. Justin Martyr, one of the earliest Christian apologists, argued "This, then, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive," signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin."5 This assertion is in error. Scripture states, "while the barren women bears seven" (1 Samuel 2:5), following Justin Martyr’s reasoning she is still barren even though she has borne children! Rather, virginity, if that is what almah had meant, would simply refer to her status at the time of the prophecy."'Virgin' (almah) was simply a term used to refer to the prophetess prior to her union with Isaiah, not to indicate that she would give birth to a child as a virgin. By way of analogy, it would have been true in 1999 to say that 'the governor of Texas will one day lead this country,' but this obviously does not mean that George W. Bush would lead the United States as the governor of Texas."(Hank Hanegraaff, The Complete Bible Answer Book, page 221).6

Hobart E. Freeman challenges, "Furthermore, it is not true that almah can sometimes designate a married woman.7 In not one single instance either in the Scriptures or in extra-biblical literature is there any support to the critical claim that almah is used of a married woman. On the contrary, the presumption was that every almah was, by implication, a virgin and unmarried." 8 So too, Hal Lindsey writes, "The term almah may sometimes mean a young maiden but it always means an unmarried young girl. About this Martin Luther said, ‘If a Jew or Christian can prove to me that in any passage of scripture almah mean a married woman, I will give him a hundred florins.’"9

While we will return to the aforementioned Rashi, this claim has no basis in fact. First of all, there is nothing to suggest the word refers to an unmarried woman other than the fact that young women are more frequently unmarried. The word usually and best translated as virgin in Hebrew is בתולה bethulah (alternatively betulah and besulah), and this would be used to specifically identify a woman as a virgin.10 Almah (עלמה) has no such necessary (or implicit) connotation. It is interesting to note that in early times both Jews and Christians have translated this passage into Aramaic, a language related to Hebrew. In the Targum, the Jewish translation the word is rendered by the Aramaic cognate for almah (עולמתא). In contrast the Peshitta, the Aramaic Christian Bible, in Matthew quote of this verse uses the Aramaic cognate for the Hebrew bethulah (בתולתא), not almah! Apparently these early Semitic language speaking Christians recognized that the Aramaic for bethulah was a better indicator of virginity than the Aramaic for almah.

For a table of Syriac/Aramaic letters see Wikipedia.

Secondly, the word is used rather infrequently in the T'nakh, and none of the other passages use it in such a way that demands that it means "virgin" as opposed to young woman. "The word is used nine times in the Old Testament, five times in the plural, and four times in the singular. Without dispute the word refers to an unmarried woman. No one has ever produced a test either in Hebrew or in the closely related Ugaritic language where "almah" is used in reference to a married woman." 11

Not only would it be an argument from silence to say that all instances in the T’nakh refer to an unmarried woman so the word can only refer to an unmarried woman, it is an argument from silence based on a very few number of usages.12 Even if we where to determine that each of the other instances the subject is in fact not married, that doesn't mean the word means they are unmarried, the term "refers" is being used equivocally.

And though we have only a few verses to derive the meaning from context, when we read Proverbs 30 we see a clear example of an almah being a married woman. In verses 18-33 the author gives four groups of four things that have something in common. The first example is;

There are three that are beyond me and a fourth that I do not know; the way of an eagle in the heavens; the way of a snake upon a rock; the way of a ship in the heart of the sea; and the way of a man with a young woman (almah). Such is the way of the adulterous woman: She wipes her mouth and says, ‘I have done no wrong.’

We have a list of four things that leave no evidence of having occurred. After listing the fourth, a man with an almah, the author proceeds to elaborate calling an adulterous and that she wipes her mouth and denied anything happened. One might suggest the author is giving another example in verse 20, separate from the way of a man with an almah but that would make five examples rather than the four mentioned by the author. Or one may suggest that this verse is completely unrelated, but then it would be out of place in this passage, which mentions groups of similar things. Such a suggestion also ignores the fact that the verse shares the characteristic of the preceding examples. And while some have objected to identifying the subject of this verse with intercourse as being a result of our contemporary fixation on the topic in society, such a suggestion is rather absurd 13 when the very next verse speaks about adultery.

Not surprisingly there are those who still attempt to negate the implication of this passage:
Some have maintained that what unites these four is in each one something disappears. A soaring eagle is easily lost from sight. A serpent quickly slithers off the rock, disappearing from sight. A ship can be lost in a fraction of time. And a virgin can loose her virginity to young man [sic] very quickly. If this were the true interpretation of the proverb, the word 'almah would indeed be a virgin. But since there is no moral evil in the first three examples, it seems unlikely that the fourth would call extramarital sex "wonderful." Moreover, the contrast with the adulterous woman in 30:20 would imply that the 'almah in the previous verse was not engaged in illicit sex. Probably the best way to understand this proverb is as referring to the mysterious and wonderful qualities of youthful attraction. Thus, it once again would refer to a virgin. (Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Old Testament Really Messianic?, page 154).

There are several problems with this, starting off with the false dilemma he constructs with the passage referring to a virgin either way. On the one hand if we were to accept Rydelnik's assumption that verse 20 (with respect to adultery) is in contrast with the way of a young man and an almah then there is no basis to assume the almah in question is unmarried, and assuming the young man is her husband their is nothing illicit about the relationship. Nevertheless I do not see much justification in interpreting verse 20 in contrast with the previous verse rather than as a restatement, as is common in the poetical books. Indeed the two verses are joined with the comparative adverb כן which would suggest the two are comparable. And while verse 18's "wonderful" (נפלאו) might be an inappropriate description for adultery, the translation "hidden" (such as found in Deuteronomy 30:11) would not only suffice but fit its parallelism with "a forth that I do not know". And while Rydelnik writes, "But since there is no moral evil in the first three examples, it seems unlikely that the fourth would call extramarital sex 'wonderful'" a more careful reading reveals that the word translated as "wonderful" only applies to the first three examples, "There be three things which are too wonderful for me" (KJV)

All of this discussion about other instances of almah are of secondary importance, since among the seven times T’nakh uses almah, once is in Isaiah 7:14, our text in question, and we have shown that in context it clearly refers to the "prophetess" of Isaiah 8 (apparently Isaiah’s wife), so it certainly does refer to a married woman. Certainly an almah (young woman) can be a virgin, but whether the T'nakh mentions one almah who is also a virgin or a thousand, it doesn't mean that every almah is a virgin. The context of Isaiah 7:14 demonstrates that the almah it discusses is not. Although I am not sure how much a hundred florins are worth…


Unable to establish that the Hebrew word almah means virgin, apologists try to base their interpretation on a translation. The will argue that 70 Jewish Rabbi’s translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and they translated the word almah as parthenos, which means virgin.
The fact that the word almah means "a virgin" is proven by the Septuagint. During the intertestamental period, seventy-two Hebrew scholars, six from each of the twelve tribes, worked down in Alexandria, Egypt, on the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language. When they came to this "sign" in Isaiah, those seventy-two men understood that it meant "virgin," and they translated it into the Greek word parthenos 14
The first problem15 is that the tradition that "Seventy Jewish Rabbis" translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek only applies to the first five books, the Torah (never mind the incongruity of citing Jewish tradition by those who deride and scoff at unless it serves their purpose and then they treat it as if it were from the most reliable source in the world). The rest of the Hebrew Bible was translated at different times by different people. The next problem is that it must be pointed out that extant copies of the Hebrew Bible into Greek do not accurately reflect the pre-Christian translations for Greek speaking Jews, so it is not at all certain that the term parthenos was used at all, much less by 70 Jewish Sages. Furthermore, even if we assume that in the time between such translations were made and the time which the Christian Scriptures were written, the term parthenos did not undergo a change in meaning or implications, it is not at all certain that the translator considered the full nuance of the term when choosing it, rather than utilizing the first seemingly appropriate term which came to mind. It is a dangerous thing to try to read the minds of people who lived centuries earlier and you know next to nothing about.

Finally, as with almah the use of parthenos need not imply anymore than her status at the time of the prophecy.


Another line of objection goes that since the child is to be called Immanuel, which literally means "God is with us", then the child can’t be a normal child (see Freeman, page 205, see also John Calvin on Isaiah 7:14). The assumption here seems to be that the statement of "God is with us" is due to the fact that this child is born. However if you recall this message of this passage is that Judah will be safe from the alliance of Aram and Israel. God is with Judah because He is protecting them from their enemies, "Plan a conspiracy and it shall be annulled; speak your piece and it shall not stand, for God is with us." (Isaiah 8:10). One must wonder why the name Immanu-e l (God is with us) is seen as any more an indicator of divinity than Sh’mu-e l (His name is God) or any of the other many Hebrew names with references to God in them?

Interestingly, some wish to argue that Isaiah's son born in chapter eight cannot be the child of Isaiah 7:14 since he wasn't named Immanuel. "The scriptures mention no individual with the name Immanuel, either in name or in deed. To the wife of the prophet Isaiah, or to anyone else." (James a. McCune, Is Jesus the Jews' Messiah?, page 17). "Chapters 7-12 constitute a series of prophecies given during the reign of Ahaz. some have attempted to identify the virgin's Son of chapter 7 with the prophet's son in chapter 8. The names preclude that possibility..." (Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee vol. 3 page 216.) This is curious since the Nazarene wasn't named Immanuel either, not do we ever see him called by such a name/title in the Christian Bible unless you count the instance when the verse is cited in Matthew as predicting his virgin birth. Of course the only other place where Immanuel is found in the Hebrew Scriptures (or the Christian scriptures save for Matthews citation of Isaiah 7:14) is in Isaiah chapter 8 following the birth of his son. Rashi notes (in manuscript editions at least see Judaica Press Isaiah vol. 1 on chapter 8) that while Isaiah is commanded to name his son "Maher-shalal-hash-baz" in chapter eight Isaiah 7:14 says "she shall call his name Immanuel." The Hebrew is unambiguously in the feminine, and though that alone might not be sufficient to make it apparent that the two names refer to the same child, the totality of the context does. (Indeed, the name the prophet is instructed to call his son has ominous implications, one can easily imagine a mother preferring a name with a more positive connotation.) In support of the Christian interpretation (despite the Nazarene not being named Imanuel) Brown notes that Scripture gives Solomon a name in 2 Samuel 12:24-25 which is otherwise un-used (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, page 31).

A "Sign"

Since one is unable to establish almah as meaning virgin the objection is raised that a non-virgin birth in not miraculous. According to the prophecy the child was a "sign", an אוֹת. "Unless almah be translated with the implication of virgin there is no announcement worthy of being constituted as a sign of the birth of Immanuel, who was to be called Mighty [God]." (An Introduction to Old Testament Prophets, Hobart E. Freeman, Page 208, see also The Promise, Hal Lindsey page 66.) Again, "My friend, it is no sign at all for a young woman to conceive and bear a son. If that's a sign, then right here in Southern California a sign is taking place many times a day, every day." (Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee vol. 4, page 12).Or in the words of John Calvin:
Though we should admit what they say, that עלמה (gnalmah) sometimes denotes a young woman, and that the name refers, as they would have it, to the age, (yet it is frequently used in Scripture when the subject relates to a virgin,) the nature of the case sufficiently refutes all their slanders. For what wonderful thing did the Prophet say, if he spoke of a young woman who conceived through intercourse with a man? It would certainly have been absurd to hold out this as a sign or a miracle. (John Calvin on Isaiah 7:14,
Yet Calvin himself had just noted that:
Now, there are two kinds of signs; for some are extraordinary, and may be called supernatural; such as that which the Prophet will immediately add, and that which, we shall afterwards see, was offered to Hezekiah. (Isaiah 38:7.) Some are ordinary, and in daily use among believers, such as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which contain no miracle, or at least may be perceived by the eye or by some of the senses. (John Calvin on Isaiah 7:12, ibid).
This objection actually strengthens my argument because one really is arguing with God, not me. In Isaiah 8:18, the prophet said, "Behold, I and the children whom Hashem has given me are signs (לְאתוֹת = "for signs" is plural of the word found in 7:14) and symbols for Israel from Hashem." (Stone Edition) The word sign doesn’t strictly imply a miraculous sign as many apologists would suggest, and the T’nakh clearly identifies Isaiah’s children as "signs".

Though the subsequent, parallel passage identifies Isaiah’s son’s as "signs" Michael Brown wished to argue that based on context it must be a miraculous sign,
"This much is obvious from the context: The sign must clearly bear the marks of divine activity and intervention, since Ahaz grieved the Lord by refusing to ask for a sign, ‘whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights,’ as a result of which the Lord said that [H]e [H]imself would give Ahaz. What a sign it needed to be!" (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, page 20.)
This point is to commended insofar as it attempt to establish a reason for understanding the sign to be supernatural, but one must realize that the verse cited were intended to convey the broad range of options which Ahaz had to select a sign, not to pigeon-hole God’s. That God must select a miraculous sign does not follow from Ahaz’s being given the option. Nevertheless I would contend that if the sign "must clearly bear the marks of divine activity and intervention" that a virgin birth may be "supernatural" but it is in no-way clear. After all Mary’s husband Joseph needed to be informed of the "miracle", certainly Ahaz wasn’t privy to. As Brown himself notes, the claim of a virgin birth "hardly an easy pill to swallow" (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, page 71).Ultimately Joseph required divine revelation of Mary’s virginal status, the "sign" itself required a "sign".

Another approach utilized is to argue since the Bible condemns an unmarried, non-virgin, to death, then the almah had to be a virgin. In addition to being incorrect, since the death penalty was only prescribed for adultery and not fornication (Exodus 22:15), it is clear from the Gospels that this was not a possibility. Mary, being "betrothed" and technically married to Joseph by Jewish law, would have been guilty of adultery for a relationship with another man and liable to the death penalty according to Biblical law (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). Even though Joseph had not yet had the source of Mary’s pregnancy "revealed" to him, his intent was merely to divorce her. She was never under any threat of execution because the Romans reserved the right to inflict capital punishment (cf. John 18:31). Furthermore, as we have noted, nothing in the term almah implies an unmarried woman. Isaiah’s wife was a young woman, but a married young woman. Nothing was illicit about their relationship.

With this in mind, perhaps we can better understand "What is bothering Rashi?" such that he explains "maidens’ as "virgins". Sifsei Chachamim explains that while Rashi would offer both the simple and allegorical meanings of Shir haShirim, "maidens" is a bit straightforward, so "virgins" is offered as an alternative. But is it really a simple mathematical equation of the two. No. Rashi does not explain that the two terms are synonymous. "Virgins" are simply [generally] a subcategory of "young women" who do happen to be unmarried. Rashi is narrowing in on the identity of these "maidens" in the verse "Therefore do the maidens love thee." Of course Scripture isn’t portraying this gentlemen as some creep who attracts the attention of married women, so Rashi uses a term that refers to the subcategory of "young women" who are not married, virgins. It is not the term almah which requires this, since as we have seen it is used to refer to non-virgins, but it is the context of the verse itself where such a qualification might be inferred.

In contrast, many who have conceded that the plain meaning of the text refers to Isaiah’s son, still maintain that this is a dual prophecy or that it alludes to the Nazarene’s virgin birth. Some specifically argue that the very reason Hashem used the word almah is because it could refer to a non-virgin (Isaiah’s wife) or a virgin (Mary). This approach is without merit. You can not derive a specific fact from a general statement. That would be similar to saying the prophecy that Messiah would be from Judah predicts that he would be from the family of Joseph the carpenter. It’s foolish, the passage doesn’t give that information. It doesn’t answer the question. Since the word in question could mean a virgin or a non-virgin, one could just as easily say it foreshadows that the Messiah would be born of a non-virgin. One cannot make such a specific inference from a general premise. Superficially one might see such a claim as similar to how we have explained Rashi, but in Rashi their is additional contextual reason to limit the scope of the term. In Isaiah 7:14 there is not additional context to change the implication of the term, since the term in context refers to the wife of Isaiah. And unlike Rashi's comment on Shir HaShirim which simply explains/teaches the meaning of a verse, Matthew is not merely stating that Isaiah 7:14 refers to the Nazarene, but he implies that there is a fulfillment of prophecy in the Nazarene's virgin birth, but were there is not the ability to derive such a specific meaning until after the fact then one cannot claim that a prophecy has been "fulfilled". Even if it had been intended, it wasn't predicted.

In addition to the above considerations we must remember that this was a sign for king of Yehudah that his enemies would not defeat them. One must ask how this sign could be of any significance if it occurred hundreds of years after the death of those for whom the sign was intended? Freeman tries to address this difficulty by citing Zechariah 3:8 and he writes, "It cannot be maintained, therefore, that the essential purpose in every sign is for it to have immediate significance to that particular generation in which it is given" (page 206).

Now, the Jewish interpreters understand the passage to mean Yehoshua the Kohen Gadol (Joshua the High Priest); "you and your companions who are sitting before you, for they are men [worthy] of miracles" rather than men that are a sign. That being said, if we were to concede that they were themselves signs, they are not signs for anyone specific as was Immanuel, who was a "sign" specifically for the king of Yehudah. Also note the irony that Freeman argues that Immanuel must be a miraculous birth to be a sign but then cites these regular humans as examples of signs to show that a sign doesn’t have to be for the generation it is given.

The Hebrew word translated "virgin" refers to an unmarried woman (Gen. 24:43; Prov. 30:19, Song 1:3; 6:8), indicating that the birth of Isaiah's own son in Isaiah 8:3 could not have fulfilled this prophecy. Besides, birth of a son to Isaiah would hardly have satisfied the promise of a "sign" and the son's name is "Immanuel" in 7:14. Matthew noted the fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Israel's Messiah in Matthew 1:23 and applied the name "Immanuel" (i.e., "God with us") from Isaiah 7:14 to Him. That was a literal fulfillment of Isaiah's Old Testament prophecy." (Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New versus the Old, page 243).

There is no support in Isaiah 7:14 for the virgin birth. It is a clear prophecy of Isaiah’s own son in the following chapter. Context shows that it is his wife who is the "almah" of our verse, and his son who is the "sign" and this is conceded by many Christian interpreters, including evangelicals. It is also significant that none of us can claim knowledge that this verse was fulfilled by the birth of the Nazarene. The "claim" of a virgin birth isn’t the same thing as a fulfillment. No one, not even the apostles, witnessed this miracle, it is indemonstrable. Rather, even if one believed that Isaiah 7:14 predicted a virgin birth, even of the Messiah, one would have no reason to accept the claim that it had been fulfilled unless one already was a Christian who accepted Christian doctrine.

1On the other hand we also see a tendency among some to minimize the importance of Isaiah 7:14 in the face of difficulties in maintaining the Christian stance. "The virgin birth of Jesus, we should note, in no way depends on Isaiah 7:14, but on the unequivocal statements in Matthew (1:18, 25) and Luke (1:34, 35)." William Sanford LaSor, Hermeneutics, page 112. "Isaiah 7:14 is often attacked by the anti-missionaries as a "central" prophecy of the New Testament, as if it were quoted dozens of times by the New Testament authors and as if it were grossly misinterpreted there. In fact, it is quoted only once in the entire New Testament, and when understood properly—in terms of Isaiah’s original prophecy and Matthew’s quotation—you will see that the Messianic interpretation makes good scriptural sense." (Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3. page 18.
2Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 3. page 26. Brown’s identification of Isaiah 8 fulfilling Isaiah 7 is nuanced, but note that he identifies Isaiah 8 as "another child of promise" although the passage does not predict his birth but rather records it. Isaiah 7 predicts a child being born, Isaiah 8 gives the account of a child being born.

3Ramm,Protestant Biblical Interpretation, page 252. So too the very conservative Dake’s Annotated Study Bible (page 505 column 4) sees these verses as referring to Isaiah's son, with the exception of verse 14 which he rips it from the surrounding context and says refers exclusively to the Nazarene. Full disclosure requires that I note that while Dake is extremely, well, conservative with an atypical style and might represent the extremity of the Christian point of view, he would not be considered normative by many other evangelical Christians for good reason.

4Subsequently, I have seen this noted in passing by Michael Brown in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, page 30.

5 First Apology, chapter 33,

6 This idea is also expressed by the more liberal John Goldingay, "Even if the traditional translation "virgin" (NIV) rather than RSV's "young girl" is right, this need not imply that the girl in question will still be a virgin when she conceives and gives birth. To say that the Prince of Wales will one day rule Great Britain does not indicate that he will rule as prince; it presupposes that he will rule after he has become king."Models for Interpretation of Scripture, page 164. I present this argument hypothetically of course since almah does not mean virgin.

Christian apologists are often willing to concede that almah does not mean virgin, but they often insist that it only refers to an unmarried woman. "it is not true that almah can sometimes designate a married woman." (Freeman, page 208). "It always means an unmarried young girl." (Lindsey, page 66). "The Hebrew word almah denotes any young unmarried woman, whether she has kept her virginity or not." (All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible, Lockyer, page 62.) This is ironic since Mary was, after all, married to Joseph at the time she conceived the Nazarene, as we see from Joseph's intention to "put her away", i.e. divorce her prior to the revelation of her supernatural conception. See Dake on Matthew 1:19, "Divorce her privately (Dt. 24:1-4), as well as the NIV's translation of Matthew 1:19.

This doesn't actually pose a problem for Christianity since despite it being repeated frequently there is no basis to restrict the application of this term only to young women who are single (see Joel 1:18, and our comments below).

8An Introduction to Old Testament Prophets, Page 208.

9The Promise, page 66.

There are those who make an even bolder claim, arguing that bethulah does not mean virgin. Typically this is based off of Joel 1:8, "Lament like a [bethulah] girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." See for example, "Lament like a virgin - for the husband of her youth - Virgin is a very improper version here. The original is בתולה bethulah, which signifies a young woman or bride not a virgin, the proper Hebrew for which is עלמה almah. See the notes on Isaiah 7:14 (note), and Matthew 1:23 (note)." ( Regarding this, McDowell correctly notes, "Joel 1:8 is, according to Unger, not an exception because it 'refers to the loss of one betrothed, not married.'" (Evidence that Demands a Verdict page 144).[We must point out that betrothal in Jewish law is a form of marriage subject to the laws of adultery and only dissolved by divorce but, as was the intent of this citation, the practice was that the marriage was not consummated at this stage.]. Had those who made such a claim made any attempt to apply this claim consistently they would know it is untenable. One need only look at the Mosaic legislation in Deuteronomy 22 regarding charges of unfaithfulness to clearly understand that the term refers to virginity.
Brown, in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 3 provides a more comprehensive argument for this position, with varying degrees of strength. Yet in doing so he overstates his case stating "All this is of great importance when we remember that anti-missionaries commonly tell us that if Isaiah had intended to prophesy a virgin birth clearly, he would have used betulah rather than ’almah/ Not so! Rather neither word in and of itself would clearly and unequivocally convey the meaning of virgin." (ibid page 23). Brown himself notes (205, footnote 57) that in legal contexts, i.e. when the actual status of the woman vis a vi intercourse is relevant, bethulah is used to indicate virginity.

Likewise Brown’s assertion (ibid page 204) that the identification of "bethulah" in Joel 1:8 with a betrothed woman is "purely speculative" and his citation which labels the identification of ba’al as not only husband but also "fiancé" as an "assumption" fails to consider the historical reality of the "marital" status of the betrothed in ancient Jewish culture. So while giving us a number of pieces of evidence which may suggest bethulah was used loosely, the fact that this is the term employed when virginity was specifically in question has not and cannot be negated.

11James A. McCune, Is Jesus the Jews' Messiah?, page 14, citing James e. Smith What the Bible Teaches About the Messiah page 252.
We should also consider the claim that the term almah was necessary to refer to a woman who was a virgin and of marriageable age. In addition to having no supporting evidence indicating that the word has such a connotation, it is simply not the case that the more common word for virgin is insufficient for such an implication. To the contrary we read in Psalms 148:12, "young men and also maidens (bethuloth), old men together with youths" Here "maidens", the word we have otherwise translated as "virgins" is used to parallel "young men." The term may apply to younger girls technically, but that is not usually the context it is used.

13In truth it is an ad hominem fallacy which attacks not the interpretation but the interpreter (for "seeing" a topic which is brought up in the passage explicitly no less). A similar, but alternative understanding of Proverbs 30:19 is given by Gry in The Book of Isaiah cited by Brown in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, page 202, "On the other hand, it is also used in Pr 3019 where the marvels of procreation and embryology…seem to be alluded to." While the verse would bear such an interpretation, the subsequent reference to adultery would suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, that the relationship under consideration is an intimate one is confirmed as the natural implication, only with respect to the specific inference does this opinion diverge.
14Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, vol.4, page 12.

15While there are some missionaries who wish to argue that the "Rabbi's" who translated the Torah into Greek understood Isaiah 7:14 as referring to a virgin birth, others have taken the opposite approach. In an attempt to argue against the view that the Gospel's biography of the Nazarene is the result of legend grown up around him in accordance with the Messianic expectations of the time, Vincent Henry Stanton wrote:
...Justin's Dialog with Trypho shows that even in his day Jews were not known to have so interpreted it. For Justin is endeavoring to prove to Jews that the "prophecy had been spoken not with reference to Hezekiah as ye were taught, but to this my Christ." (Dial. C. 71) If Jewish interpreters had changed its application, or if any school among them had held the Messianic view, he would certainly, judging by the charges he brings in many cases, have made the most of the fact. ( The Jewish and The Christian Messiah, page 377)