welcome!

Nov 23, 24

Hi Pat,

It was great catching up the other day, and thanks again for your willingness to engage in dialogue regarding the topic of Messiah!

So, here’s a little background so you know where I’m at right now. Beth and I both follow the Torah. Nothing has changed there. She still believes Yeshua is Messiah, whereas I lean in the other direction. With that said, I also leave the door open to the possibility that I could be wrong. I try to approach things as a student and not as a teacher.

I initially approached this with the idea that I would occasionally attend synagogues in person while also reading through the NT on my own to explore both routes. When I got to the book of John, I started to see a lot of contradictions and red flags and eventually came to the conclusion that treating the Mashiach as a deity veered into the topic of idolatry.

I don’t want to overwhelm you with too many topics at once, so I’ll just pick a topic at a time whenever you’re open to it. 

VIRGIN BIRTH: Isaiah 7:14

1- Word Choice (Almah v Betulah)

In modern Hebrew, there is only one word for virgin-  Betulah. The question is whether biblical Hebrew operated the same. Isaiah 7 uses the term Almah, which, to my understanding, “can” apply to a virgin but doesn’t automatically mean virgin.

• Betulah has no respect for age; it just means a virgin, can be young or old.
• Almah has no respect for virginity; it just means young female, can be a virgin or a non-virgin.

Almah is also used in Proverbs 30:18-20, and there is no question that the young woman is not a virgin; she is compared to an adulterous woman, and the point is made that people can have intercourse and leave no trace that this has occurred.

Possibility- Early Christians were assimilated into Hellenism, where the concept of virgin births was prevalent in pagan mythologies. Perhaps they first had the belief about virgin births and then found a verse that could be taken out of context?

On a small and separate word-choice issue, we know his name isn’t Emmanuel; it’s Yeshua. The only time that name is referenced in the NT is when it’s quoting Isaiah.  

2- Context

Item #1 is actually a moot point if Isaiah isn’t referencing a messianic prophecy in the first place. My belief is that the story in Isaiah 7 is about Ahaz (700 years earlier). 

Ahaz is being sieged by enemies and requested a sign. Isaiah names the sign, which is that a woman who was already pregnant would soon give birth to a male (remember, a sign is not necessarily a miracle… a sign is something real that points to something else). Now, every time Ahaz sees the child, he would be comforted to know that God was on his side and he had nothing to worry about. This is why the child’s name is Emmanuel (God is with Us). 

Isaiah tells Ahaz that by the time the child is old enough to tell the difference between Good and Evil, the two enemy kings will be dead and is therefore meant as a sign for Ahaz’s own time and not for a time 700 years in Ahaz’s future.

The fact that the article “the” (Ha Almah) was used indicated that the young woman was someone who was known to both Isaiah and Ahaz at the time, which is also indicated by the past tense, “HAS conceived” (Harah).

I would love to hear your thoughts. 

Answer:

Dec. 5, 24

Sorry about the delay.  I’ve been busy and kinda working on this a little at a time.

The Almah vs. Betula debate has been quite longstanding in Christianity and Judaism.  In my opinion, Betulah is the “only” word for virgin in modern Hebrew because the Hebrew scholars insisted on it being that way because of Isaiah 7:14.  I find it interesting that the claim that Betula is the only word referring to a virgin when English has “chaste,” “pure,” “undefiled” and maybe others that mean precisely the same thing as “virgin.” 

In my opinion, the claim is that “Almah” means a young unmarried maiden in Israel also means that it has the term “virgin” written all over it. I saw this Proverbs example, previously in some of Tovia Singers slippery attempts.  The example of the passage in Proverbs is not at all correct.  Verses 18 and 19 are not connected to verse 20 at all.  Proverbs mostly consists of non-connected truths and facts.  In Proverbs 30:18-19, there are four examples of things that are too wonderful for the author, Agur: The way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a “Almah.”  The way of an adulterous woman is an entirely different thought. 

(Prov 30:18 NASB)  There are three things which are too wonderful for me, Four which I do not understand:
(Prov 30:19 NASB)  The way of an eagle in the sky, The way of a serpent on a rock, The way of a ship in the middle of the sea, And the way of a man with a maid (Heb. – almah).
(Prov 30:20 NASB)  This is the way of an adulterous woman (Heb. – naaph ishshah): She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, “I have done no wrong.”

“Virgin” fits the bill extremely well in this case because the way of a young man courting a young virgin makes memories that are lifelong, mysterious, and endearing.  Whether or not one wants to say that “virgin” is not necessary in this example of things that are “too wonderful” and “mysterious” in modern times does not make sense either.  The fact that the young maiden is a virgin adds to intrigue, desire, and effort on the part of the man.

The next Proverb goes to a totally different subject which is the way of an adulterous woman.  She just goes on in life ignoring her sinful behavior which doesn’t even interrupt her meal. 

However, “betulah” doesn’t always refer to a “virgin” in and of itself.  These are my notes on Genesis 24:16:

(Gen 24:16 NASB)  And the girl was very beautiful, a virgin, and no man had had relations with her; and she went down to the spring and filled her jar, and came up.

Rebecca was a babe.  She was blessed by Elohim and was the woman He had picked out for Isaac before she was born. Her full genealogy was given because in Genesis 22:20-24 we are told Nahor also had children with a concubine.  The child of a wife enjoyed higher prestige.

She is described as “a virgin.”  The Hebrew word “betulah” means “a young woman of marrying age whether married or not.”  When it is joined with the phrase, “no man had known her,” then it designates virginity.  This passage made it a point to state “the girl was very beautiful, a virgin, and no man had had relations with her;” because they wanted to make sure that “betulah” in this case meant “virgin.”  

One of the most controversial passages in Scripture is Isaiah 7:14. It is often criticized whether or not the translation “virgin” was justified in that passage.  It is claimed that the Hebrew word “Betulah” should be used instead of the word “almah” which also means “maiden ” or “virgin.” Jewish scholars and liberal Christian scholars have debated for centuries over this issue claiming that “maiden” should be the translation instead of “virgin.”  However, this argument falls apart upon examination.  The word “almah” as in Isaiah 7:14 appears to always refer to a virgin.  But in Joel 1:8, the term betulah is used to describe a woman lamenting over the death of her husband.  Similar instances of betulah being used in reference to a married woman are in the Talmud also.

In the translating of the Septuagint by Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis in the 3rd century BC, the term “almah” is referred to as virgin in Isaiah 7:14 also.  They used the specific Greek word for virgin, “parthenos,” not the more generic Greek word for “young woman.” 

The Septuagint translators more than 200+ years before Messiah, and with no inherent belief in a “virgin birth,” translated “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin,” not “young woman.” This gives evidence that “virgin” is the likely meaning of the term “almah.

As for those who claim that the Septuagint, other than the Torah, was first translated into Greek by Christians centuries later, that is simply not true.  Paul mostly quotes the Septuagint in his letters, so the Tanakh was translated into Greek long before his time.  

The controversy never materialized until there was an axe to grind by Jewish Orthodox who are offended by the Truth of Yeshua as Messiah.
So if a virgin is being spoken of, without other surrounding verbal support , the term “almah” as used in Isaiah 7:14 is best.

Also, Ahaz never asked for a sign (Heb. – “oth”).  Elohim told him to ask for one, but he refused to do it.  While you are correct that this doesn’t necessarily refer to a miracle, Elohim told Ahaz to ask for a sign as deep as the grave or as high as the heavens.  Ahaz was certainly told to ask for any miraculous sign in the world such as making the day longer, making a sundial go backwards, etc.  Ahaz refused to do so, piously claiming that would be putting Elohim to the test.  So instead, Elohim said He would give a sign to the entire House of David.

(Isa 7:10-16 NASB)  Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,  “Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”  But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!”  Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?  “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.  “He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.  “For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

This is definitely prophecy.  The question is what the child has to do with it at all.  There is not any indication that Ahaz ever saw such a child with the name “Immanuel” or that there is any particular woman pregnant.  Once again, Ahaz refused any kind of sign, so this child is a sign for the nation of Israel as indicated by Isaiah.

Ahaz was an evil king, not one who loved Adonai.  Ahaz did not rely on Elohim to deliver him and the nation of Judah.  He relied upon Assyria to do so.  Even so, Elohim tells him that the two enemies he fears will not succeed and they will fall very soon.

(Isa 7:17-20 NASB)  “The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father’s house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria.”  And it will come about in that day, that the LORD will whistle for the fly that is in the remotest part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.  And they will all come and settle on the steep ravines, on the ledges of the cliffs, on all the thorn bushes, and on all the watering places.  In that day the Lord will shave with a razor, hired from regions beyond the Euphrates (that is, with the king of Assyria), the head and the hair of the legs; and it will also remove the beard.

Elohim is not only going to destroy Syria and Israel, but the king of Assyria (the world power of the day) is going to be clean shaved (or humiliated).

(Isa 7:21-25 NASB)  Now it will come about in that day that a man may keep alive a heifer and a pair of sheep;  and it will happen that because of the abundance of the milk produced he will eat curds, for everyone that is left within the land will eat curds and honey.  And it will come about in that day, that every place where there used to be a thousand vines, valued at a thousand shekels of silver, will become briars and thorns.  People will come there with bows and arrows because all the land will be briars and thorns.  And as for all the hills which used to be cultivated with the hoe, you will not go there for fear of briars and thorns; but they will become a place for pasturing oxen and for sheep to trample.

Elohim assures Ahaz that the people of Syria and Israel will be poor and desolate and that He will judge them very soon.  Ahaz is then told that Assyria will attack Judah, even reaching “up to the neck” of Judah, but Assyria will be defeated.  This doesn’t have anything to do with a child named “Immanuel.”  However, it is clearly stated that the land of Judah  is indeed owned by “Immanuel.”

(Isa 8:8 NASB)  “Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

This is is once again referencing “Immanuel.”  The land is referred to as belonging to that of “Immanuel” (Elohim with us).  These two verses are the only time the name “Immanuel” are used in the Tanakh.  This further lends credence to Isaiah 7:14 being a reference to Messiah.

Also…

There is a section of Isaiah that deals with prophecies during the reign of Ahaz that have two logical progressions.

One progression concerns the nation of Israel. Chapter 7 deals with the coming invasion by Assyria. Chapter 8 warns Ahaz against making associations with other nations as a substitute for reliance on Elohim. Chapter 9 deals with the continuing judgment of the Israelite’s up to the time of today. Chapter 10 prophesies about the attack of Assyria on Judah and Jerusalem.       

The other progression that takes place in these six chapters is the prophecy of the Messiah. Chapter 7 tells us about a virgin that will conceive, bear a Son, and call Him Emmanuel (Isa 7:14). Chapter 8 makes no apparent direct prophecy about Messiah, but chapter nine takes us past the birth of Yeshua and His first coming to the time He is crowned King and His reign over the world (Isa 9:6-7). Chapter 10 has no apparent direct prophecy of Messiah, but in chapter 11, reign of Yeshua over the world is prophesied. Chapter 12 shows all the nation of Israel praising Elohim.

Isa 11:1 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.

Isaiah states that a shoot shall spring forth from the stem of Jesse. The shoot is obviously Yeshua. The Hebrew word for “stem” is “geza” which actually means a “stump of a tree.” That makes this prophecy even more amazing. It is saying the great tree, or kingship, of David is going to be cut down. The kingdom of Israel will be dead and without a king. But we are told here that out of that dead stump will spring forth a living Branch. And from that living stem will come fruit.

Gen 24:16 And the girl was very beautiful, a virgin, and no man had had  relations with her; and she went down to the spring and filled her jar, and came up.

She was a babe. She was blessed by Elohim and was the woman He had picked out for Isaac before she was born. Her full genealogy was given because in Genesis 22:20-24 we are told Nahor also had children with a concubine. The child of a wife enjoyed higher prestige. She is described as “a virgin.” The Hebrew word ” Betulah” means “a young woman of marrying age whether married or not. When it is joined with the phrase, “no man had known her,” then it connotates virginity. This passage made it a point to state “the girl was very beautiful, a virgin, and no man had had relations with her;” because they wanted to make sure that ” Betulah” in this case meant “virgin.”

One of the most controversial passages in Scripture is Isaiah 7:14. It is often criticized as to whether or not the translation “virgin” was justified in that passage. The Hebrew word ” Betulah” would be used instead of the word “almah” which also means “maiden ” or “virgin.” Jewish scholars and liberal Christian scholars have debated for centuries over this issue claiming that “maiden” should be used instead of “virgin.” However, this argument falls apart upon examination. The word “almah” as in Isaiah 7:14 appears to always refer to a virgin. But in Joel 1:8, the term Betulah is used to describe a woman lamenting over the death of her husband. Similar instances of Betulah being used in reference to married woman are in the Talmud also.      

In the translating of the Septuagint, the term “almah” is referred to as virgin in Isaiah 7:14 also. The controversy never materialized until there was an axe grind by Jewish Orthodox who are offended by the Truth of Yeshua as Messiah. So, if a virgin is being spoken of, without other surrounding verbal support, the term almah, as used in Isaiah 7:14 is best.

While you may not agree with my understanding on this issue, I believe it to be sound and correct.  I look forward to discussing other topics also!

Pat