Yuku free message boards

The word itself in the Hebrew refers to a young, unmarried woman (or woman of marriageable age) before she has given birth to her first child. I'd have to agree with your Jewish friend--that the virginity of the maiden in question is a "gimme." It's the strongest possible word Isaiah could have used to express this point.

The biggest problem with rendering the word into the English as "young woman" is that, in our culture, it loses the proper force of connotation that it has in the Hebrew.

(BTW - The word Bethulah, incedentally, can refer to a married woman).

b.w.

The prophecy, as initially given, was fulfilled within just a few years, and most think the son born was Hezekiah.

Except that "most" fail to realize that Hezekiah had already been born at the time of the prophecy--being already around 6 to 9 years of age. Chronology simply doesn't permit that he be the son, much less that he be Immanuel. Neither could the Almah be the wife of Ahaz, mother of Hezekiah, seeing that she also had a husband--yet an Almah is a young woman of marriagable age before she is joined (sexually) to her husband.

Moreover, it is simply not possible that Mahershalalhashbaz (8:1) is Immannuel, as this argument so often requires--for Isaiah's wife, having already had her first child and being married to Isaiah, could not possibly be the Almah here spoken of. Furthermore, the context of Isaiah 8:8 to 9:6 clearly indicates this child to be more than just an ordinary human king of Israel.

Rather, the prophecies of "Immanuel" and "Mahershalalhashbaz" only seem to run parallel at first, but as the chapters go on one realizes that the two are quite distinct--and that Immanuel from 8:8 begins a rash of Messianic prophecies that, at first, parallel events that were then soon to come. Yet they quickly proceed to prophesy of things that would be fulfilled at the birth and crucifixion of Christ, then the consequences of His rejection, and then the ultimate restoration of Israel to God, and even touches upon the future earthly kingdom of our Lord. Isaiah 9:1 still refers to "Immanuel" in Isaiah 8:8, only whereby in v. 6 we read, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Certainly, there is no indication that this child could possibly have been Hezekiah.

Matthew is using a Midrashic interpretation technique

I believe you mean "Pesher," and not "Midrash" (I've left you a note on this a bit higher up in the thread). The first problem with this argument is that Matthew didn't write his gospel in Greek--it was written in Hebrew. This is testified by Papias from the first century, who obtained his information from the hearers of the Apostles, Irenaeus of Lyons, who was a hearer of Polycarp to whom was written the letter to Smyrna in the book of Revelation--a hearer of the Apostle John. So also testifying of this fact are Eusebius of Caesarea, Clement of Alexandria, and I'm sure to be omitting one or two others which I cannot remember off-hand. Now, I believe you mention this in another post--only, who it was that translated Matthew's gospel is unknown. Such is admitted by Papias (and one other writer, though I cannot remember which. If it weren't so late, I'd take better time to look it up). It would not surprise me, however, to find it as either Mark or Luke (or both).

According to Jerome, a copy of the original Hebrew survived in the Library at Caesarea so late as the fourth century--and when Matthew appealed to the scriptures, he appealed solely to the authority of the Hebrew. So what Matthew wrote here, in this place, ought not to be believed any different from that of the Hebrew text itself. And as a matter of fact, Matthew's translator is not using a Midrashic interpretation of the verse any more than the LXX translators, from which his translator obviously referred, decided that the word (without any ulterior motive) should be translated as parthenos.

In the Old Testament, the word is never used of a married woman. It is never used of a woman who had any children. Bethulah, on the other hand, often requires a qualification to clarify whether or not "virginity" is intended--and can even refer to a married woman. Moreover, the very context of its usage throughout the centuries denoted a girl of purity and chastity. Such connotations do not carry well, especially in our day, under the translation "young woman"--which is used by critics to detract from the translation provided for us in Matthew.

b.w.