 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Prophecy is a muddy science, and Bible prophecy more muddy than most. Take those Old Testament prophecies. Evangelists never tire of telling us that hundreds were fulfilled in the life of Yeshua, far too many to be called coincidence.
Answer for yourself: But how many of these are real, and how many are prophetia ex eventu--prophecies constructed after the fact, products of careful selection and interpretation?
Answer for yourself: How many of these New Testament prophecies “fulfilled” are twisted and mistranslated on purpose from the Jewish Scriptures?
To get an idea, let's look at the most famous, the prophecy of the child Immanuel as presented in the Gospel of Matthew:
Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, G-d with us (1:22-23 , KJV).
Most good Christians take this passage from the KJV Bible or other Christian translations at face value, assured that the prophet Isaiah did indeed describe Yeshuas miraculous conception and birth seven hundred years before. What you need to know is that most Christian versions have build their Old Testament Scriptures off of the Greek LXX Septuagint and not the Jewish Masoretic Text. If they had been faithful to the Jewish Text the word used by Isaiah is NOT “virgin” but “young woman”. As you can see this is NOT a translation but a “theological creationism” to make the presentation of Yeshua more agreeable to the Gentiles who already had “virgin-born” g-d men by the tons. More on that later.
Answer for yourself: But did Isaiah really intended for us to understand “virgin” from his text? Authorities who have honesty and integrity before their “theological agenda” are nearly unanimous. The answer is no.
Answer for yourself: What did Isaiah really say? Turning to Isaiah 7:14 (Masoretic text/Jewish Palestinian Text), we find his precise words:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, ha'almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Matthew's interpretation of this passage has several problems, the largest hanging on the Hebrew word 'almah. Writing in Greek, the gospel author turned almah into parthenos , a word usually (but not always) meaning "virgin." In fact, he had a precedent for this; the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament used by Greek-speaking Jews of his day, did indeed use parthenos in the Isaiah passage. But the Septuagint was for the most part a notoriously sloppy translation [request our information on this corrupted version of the Old Testament], and its version of Isaiah, according the the majority of honest Bible scholars who comment on the LXX attest that the book of Isaiah was generally more error-ridden than the rest of the Septuagint translations.
By the Middle Ages, the Jews had abandoned the Septuagint, and later Greek translations, by Aquila, Theodotion, Lucien and others [both Jews and Gentile-proselytes who wanted to correct such errors in the Greek text], did not use the word parthenos. (The Septuagint, commonly known as the LXX, is still favored by Eastern Orthodox churches). You need only investigate these other “corrections” to see the evidence for yourself.
Answer for yourself: Are you aware that the Hebrew Old Testament Palestinian Text [true Masoretic Text to which its accuracy was verified by discoveries with the Dead Sea Scrolls] predating the Septuagint used 'almah' meaning "young woman" and did not use the concept "virgin"? That being so, then what did the word mean?
While rare in the Hebrew Bible, almah does occur here and there, notably in Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 , but an examination of the contexts of these passages will show nothing to suggest that the noun imputed virginity.
On the other hand, a male youth in the Old Testament was called na'ar or elem, the feminine forms of which were na'arah and 'almah respectively. The limited usage of elem (lad or stripling) in the Old Testament nowhere implied sexual purity; thus an 'almah was an adolescent female, virgin or not, just as an elem was an adolescent male. In fact, one verse does seem to use 'almah in reference to a non-virgin. This is Proverbs 30:19 , which listed four things too marvelous to understand: the way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the sea, and the way of a man with a maiden ( 'almah). To say the least, "the way of a man with an 'almah" would certainly jeopardize a state of sexual purity, but more damaging than this rather obvious fact is the comparison that the writer went on to state: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (v:20 , NAB). It seems odd writer that the author would use 'almah to denote sexual purity and then compare it to the ongoing affairs of an adulterous woman. More likely the author's point was that all these things have one element in common: they do not leave much of a trace.
Aside from this, the Torah does, in fact, have an explicit word for virgin (betulah or bethulah), which is always used where the context requires virginity. (For confirmation, see Genesis 24:16 , Leviticus 21:14 , and Deuteronomy 22:15-19 ). Even Isaiah shows his familiarity with the term as he used it in 62:5 . Therefore being acquainted with the word, but choosing not to use the very word that conveyed without a doubt a "virginous state" reveals to us that its nonuse by Isaiah in the in the "Immanuel" passage is a rather loud hint that Isaiah spoke only of a young woman, not specifically of a virgin. He could have used the unmistaken Hebrew word for "virgin" if he has so wanted and we see this clearly in his other use of the word to coney such a concept in another isolated passage. But he purposefully did not choose to use it in Isa 7:14!!!!!!
Moreto the point, nearly all modern commentaries agree with Talmudic scholars that Isaiah's "sign" had nothing to do with a messiah. Reviewing more than a dozen for this article, I found only one dissenter. Significantly, it was one that spouted the fundamentalist party line on every other issue. Interested readers can jaunt to the library and peruse the massive Interpreter's Bible (Vol. 5, pp. 217-22), one of the most authoritative works in the field. Or more succinctly, try the popular Harper's Bible Dictionary (Paul J, Achtemeier, gen. ed., 1985), page 419, where this statement is found:
It is clear, however, that... Isaiah 7:14 did not speak of the miraculous birth of Jesus centuries later.... The sign of Immanuel offered by the prophet to Ahaz had to do with the imminent birth of a child, of a mother known to Ahaz and Isaiah, and signified G-d's presence with his people....
Indeed, Isaiah's word for "sign" was "ot", which in the Hebrew Bible invariably indicated an imminent sign or omen, not one in the far future. Keep reading, in fact, and you will see Isaiah's sign appear just a few verses later (Is. 8:3-4 ), when a certain prophetess gives birth to a son--a child whom G-d called "Immanuel" in verse 8. By contrast, nowhere in the New Testament did any character ever call Yeshua Immanuel.
Answer for yourself: Why the confusion?
Of course, the author of the Gospel of Matthew [not the Apostle for at this period literary productions were given “names” of famous men to enhance their value] had a vested interest in the budding church and wanted to ground the new Christian mythos in Jewish prophecy whenever possible. Almost all scholars agree this "Matthew" was not the apostle but rather a Greek-speaking Christian living in or near Antioch of Syria, who wrote about A.D. 90, about two generations after the crucifixion. Very likely, he was familiar with only the Septuagint version of Isaiah. (That Matthew wrote the first gospel was a tradition started by Bishop Papias of Hieropolos in the second century, and this one was in Hebrew, and if in Hebrew, the word "virgin" would never have been used since a familiarity with Hebrew would teach otherwise.)
Moreover, we know the gospel writers were not adverse to massaging and even manufacturing details in order to "flesh out" the Yeshua story. That is why, for example, you find such conflicting genealogies for Yeshua in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 .
All things considered, it is hardly surprising that "Matthew" would pull Isaiah a bit out of context and try to wring a new meaning from it. What is surprising is that this literary sleight of hand grew to become such a cornerstone of Christendom and still has modern fundamentalists so befuddled. So let's dust off our Bibles (I like the New Revised English Bible best for clarity and the Revised Standard Version for beauty) and reread the Immanuel prophecy--in context.
The setting is the Syro-Ephraimite war (ca. 734 B.C.). Wicked King Ahaz of Judah was frantic about Ephraim (another name for the northern kingdom, Israel) and Damascus (capital of Syria), which were plotting a preemptive strike. Isaiah enters, offering a sign. Ahaz demurs. Isaiah storms at him for his lack of faith and then provides a sign anyway: A male child would be born. Before this child is old enough to know to "refuse evil and choose the good," Assyria would lay waste both Samaria and Damascus (7:16 ). [This sub-prophecy, in fact, came true in 2 Kings 16:9 ; 17:5-6 .] Then, to punish Ahaz, Assyria itself, with Egypt, would arise as a far greater threat.
Think about this. If Ahaz was concerned with an imminent attack from Samaria and Syria, why offer a sign that would not occur for seven centuries? To Ahaz this would be no sign at all.
Answer for yourself: Also, if the Immanuel child was G-d incarnate, how could Isaiah speak of a time when Immanuel would not know enough to choose good over evil?
Answer for yourself: What about divine omniscience?
Note also the striking parallel between verses 7:16 and 8:4 . Here is Isaiah prophesying almost identically about both children. The more closely you look, the more difficult to deny that these two are identical. You can hardly blame evangelicals for seeing a special significance in the name Immanu'el, Hebrew for "G-d with us," but such language and imagery was right at home in the world of old Jewish nomenclature, where every other proper name seemed a reminder of G-d's presence. Thus we have Isaiah, which means "G-d's help"; Michael , "Like unto G-d"; Israel," "Striving with G-d"; Elihu, "He is my G-d"; Adonijah , "Yahweh Lord"; and a host of others.
Then again, some apologists try to rescue their favored exegesis by equating both Immanuel and Yeshua with the child mentioned a bit later in chapter 9 of Isaiah, "Unto us a child is born....etc." It is tempting. This section, while obscure, is in fact one of the most powerful and poetic passages in the Old Testament. It may well be an early messianic prophecy but in fairness, note that most Jewish scholars (who should know better than evangelicals) insist it is an ode praising Hezekiah, Ahaz's righteous son (2 Chron. 29 ), who came to the throne in 720 B.C. and centralized the worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem. The various titles ascribed to him, such as "Prince of Peace" and "Everlasting Father," were apparently titles of honor used by the ancient Jews for favorite kings. (You find the same sort of bread-buttering in Egyptian hymns to the pharaoh and in Babylonian royal eulogies.) Hebrew scholars also remind us, gently, that the key Hebrew verbs in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense (the child had already been born)!
A moot point. For reasons stated earlier, we cannot use the child in Isaiah 9:6 as a bridge connecting Immanuel to Yeshua. As Old Testament prophecies of the Christian Messiah go, this one, like so many others, has been overrated.
Also of importance is the fact that in Hebrew there are no "to be" verbs as we have in English. Keeping this fact in our minds then let us read Isa. 9:6:
Isa 9:6 6 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 G-d, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (KJV)
This means that the descriptions above referring to this "particular child" are only modifers of his attributes. It is not intended, as we have in our English language, to convey that the child is literally these things since called by these names. Said another way, the child will have a lot in common with "the" Wonderful Counsellor who is understood to be G-d, the child will have a lot in common with "the" mighty G-d, the child will have a lot in common with "the" everlasting Father, and that the child will have a lot in common with "the" Prince of Peace, but such designations describe attributes of the child which he will have in common with G-d. The passages, buy using these descriptions of G-d is NOT SAYING the child is G-d but only will have attributes in common with G-d. The absence of the "to be" verbs in Hebrew means, unlike in English, that the child IS NOT THESE THINGS, only alike these descriptions, which the Jews of that time knew referred only to G-d. These attributes of this child referred to the child of Isaiah 7 which was to be a sign to King Ahaz and the Rabbis today tell us the child in question was Hezekiah. Maybe you need to refresh you study on Hezekiah to understand how he exhibited in his life these attributes attributed to him in Isaiah 9.
If you have read our materials over the years you must have been struck by our hard-hitting and ruthless attack on untruth passed off as "Divine Revelation." I am a firm believer that one's faith, no matter what it is, gives no one the permission to alter or corrupt the Word of G-d, the Jewish Masoretic text, in the presentation of one's religious belief system [whether it is the corruption of the Christian's Old Testament or the hundreds of misquotations in the New Testament]. But such as been done for over two thousand years and few know of this unless that study intensely.
The alteration of the Jewish Masoretic Text by the early Essenes and the later Gentile followers of Jesus is a crime of the highest magnitude, and as said before, the vast majority of Christians have never seen this or have been told this. The "selling" of Jesus as the Messiah to the Gentile nations through the purposeful alteration, adulteration, misquotation, misapplication, and the taking of Jewish texts out of context has done great harm to the Divine Revelation given mankind. This corruption of past Divine Revelation in the presentation of Yeshua as the Messiah to the Gentile world dishonors his name as well as angers G-d. Since knowing this to have been done Bet Emet has presented hard-hitting studies for over 10 years to alert the good people who both love Yeshua and G-d, but whose worship has been compromised because of such errors and changes to the Bible Yeshua used.
Having said that let me also say that there are yet compelling reasons why Yeshua/Jesus just might have been the Messiah ben Yosef, the suffering Messiah Servant. But the corrupting of the Jewish texts by the Gentile Church to "sell" him as Messiah to the Gentile nations at the expense of the Jewish Bible is a crime of unimaginable proportions. Knowing this to have been done, I cannot not let passages that have been altered and that never referred to him to be used to attest to his identity and Messiahship when they originally had no historical or contextual bearing on him at all. To do so is nothing short of a religious fraud! Let us not make more of him than the Father intended, yet at the same time, let us not make less of him as well. Let us always to remember that we are to worship the Father in Spirit and Truth and our failure to discern such adulteration of truth concerning Yeshua compromises severely such worship!
I will leave you with a quote from my Rabbi:
"We know that a lot concerning Yeshua was taken out of our literature (the Jew's), and we know that too much was written about him into your (Christian) literature; somewhere between both extremes lies the truth about him."
Such is the great need for intense study...and the truth is hard to come by after the reactionism of both Judaism and Gentile Christianity over the last two thousand years. Shalom.
Bennoah1@verizon.net