Magdalenbrother
May 22nd 2004, 04:18 AM
I have explored the broad historical context and meaning of the "sign of the maid" in Isaiah 7,14 in a previous post. I now want to dig deeper in the crucial passage that purportedly refers to the "virginal birth" of Jesus.
HINE HA-ALMA HARAH VE-YOLEDET BEN VEYIKARAT SHMO IMANU EL
The above means:
"Behold, the maid pregnant and bearing a son and [she]will call his name with us God."
What is crucial is the time scale here. Let us remember that the reason why God wants to give a sign to Ahaz at all is because the latter is frightened, so frightened that he may doubt the prophecy concerning the survival of his house. The sign is given to "establish" Ahaz and so make sure that he resist Syria and Ephraim and the house of David be saved.
Obviously, if such a sign is to have any pyschological impact on Ahaz, it must be clearly visible and actually on hand. Now does the Hebrew text support the notion that the "sign of the maid" is actual, instead of being a remote future occurrence relating to the Messiah ?
There is plenty of evidence for precisely such a reading:
-First of all, the word for "maid" is preceded by the definite article. This is not some future unknown young woman, in which case we would have "a maid" in the text (no article, since Hebrew has no indefinite article) but the maid the listeners know about: ha-almah;
-The maid is said to be "pregnant" (harah): there is no indication that the pregnancy is a future event: hine, which is not a verb but a special particle,may introduce a future event but here it primarily draws the attention of the listeners to something that has already happened (the pregnancy) and is about to take place (the actual birth of the child);
-More importantly, the bearing of a son (note the contrast between a son and the maid) is described through a participle. This means that the maid is in fact in the process of giving birth to a male child when Isaiah makes his prophecy. In Hebrew, participles indicate an ongoing action (as opposed to a completed or nascent action). It only remains for the maid to call her firstborn "God with us".
So the sign is:
A maid from the royal palace (at any rate a young woman whom the listeners know and who is pregnant at the time) is going to give birth to a male child (her firstborn child) and she will call him "God with us".
But that is not the end of the sign!
HEMAH VE-DVASH YOHEL LEDATI MAHOS BARA' VEBAHOR BATOV
"Curds and honey [he] shall eat to know to refuse evil and choose good"
Note that the sentence, contrary to the normal word order in Hebrew, begins with the direct object (curds and honey). The normal word order is verb+subject+direct object. The reason why the object comes first here is because this is in fact the most striking part of the sign to be presently given to the king:
THE CHILD WILL NOT EAT HER MOTHER'S MILK AT ALL, BUT WILL EXCLUSIVELY FEED ON CURDS AND HONEY (symbols of abundance and prosperity)
In other words, the child will be highly precocious and selective in his dietary habits. This is something that noone will fail to notice and should therefore reassure the king as to God's intent concerning the future of his house. The fact that the child will eat only the most luxurious foods is also an indication of the continued prosperity of the house of Judah.
The text closes by saying that before the child reaches maturity Ephraim will be devastated by an insect plague. That is the end of the prophecy.
As you can see for yourself, none of this has the slightest bearing on Christ. If anything, there seems to be a foreshadowing of John the Baptist, since he also only ate honey (and insects) in the wilderness.
Greetings in the Lord,
Magdalenbro
HINE HA-ALMA HARAH VE-YOLEDET BEN VEYIKARAT SHMO IMANU EL
The above means:
"Behold, the maid pregnant and bearing a son and [she]will call his name with us God."
What is crucial is the time scale here. Let us remember that the reason why God wants to give a sign to Ahaz at all is because the latter is frightened, so frightened that he may doubt the prophecy concerning the survival of his house. The sign is given to "establish" Ahaz and so make sure that he resist Syria and Ephraim and the house of David be saved.
Obviously, if such a sign is to have any pyschological impact on Ahaz, it must be clearly visible and actually on hand. Now does the Hebrew text support the notion that the "sign of the maid" is actual, instead of being a remote future occurrence relating to the Messiah ?
There is plenty of evidence for precisely such a reading:
-First of all, the word for "maid" is preceded by the definite article. This is not some future unknown young woman, in which case we would have "a maid" in the text (no article, since Hebrew has no indefinite article) but the maid the listeners know about: ha-almah;
-The maid is said to be "pregnant" (harah): there is no indication that the pregnancy is a future event: hine, which is not a verb but a special particle,may introduce a future event but here it primarily draws the attention of the listeners to something that has already happened (the pregnancy) and is about to take place (the actual birth of the child);
-More importantly, the bearing of a son (note the contrast between a son and the maid) is described through a participle. This means that the maid is in fact in the process of giving birth to a male child when Isaiah makes his prophecy. In Hebrew, participles indicate an ongoing action (as opposed to a completed or nascent action). It only remains for the maid to call her firstborn "God with us".
So the sign is:
A maid from the royal palace (at any rate a young woman whom the listeners know and who is pregnant at the time) is going to give birth to a male child (her firstborn child) and she will call him "God with us".
But that is not the end of the sign!
HEMAH VE-DVASH YOHEL LEDATI MAHOS BARA' VEBAHOR BATOV
"Curds and honey [he] shall eat to know to refuse evil and choose good"
Note that the sentence, contrary to the normal word order in Hebrew, begins with the direct object (curds and honey). The normal word order is verb+subject+direct object. The reason why the object comes first here is because this is in fact the most striking part of the sign to be presently given to the king:
THE CHILD WILL NOT EAT HER MOTHER'S MILK AT ALL, BUT WILL EXCLUSIVELY FEED ON CURDS AND HONEY (symbols of abundance and prosperity)
In other words, the child will be highly precocious and selective in his dietary habits. This is something that noone will fail to notice and should therefore reassure the king as to God's intent concerning the future of his house. The fact that the child will eat only the most luxurious foods is also an indication of the continued prosperity of the house of Judah.
The text closes by saying that before the child reaches maturity Ephraim will be devastated by an insect plague. That is the end of the prophecy.
As you can see for yourself, none of this has the slightest bearing on Christ. If anything, there seems to be a foreshadowing of John the Baptist, since he also only ate honey (and insects) in the wilderness.
Greetings in the Lord,
Magdalenbro