\n<\/p>\n
Everybody just calm down. But here\u2019s the deal\u2026<\/p>\n
Matthew 1:23<\/a> famously cites Isaiah 7:14<\/a>, \u201cLook, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,\u201d which means \u201cGod with us.\u201d This is understood to be a demonstration of biblical prophecy across the ages that predicts the miraculous conception of Jesus.<\/p>\n Luke also refers to Mary conceiving a child by miraculous means (\u201cThe Holy Spirit shall come upon you. . . \u201c Luke 1:35<\/a>), but he does not tie it to the Old Testament as Matthew does. That tells us that the circumstances of Jesus\u2019s conception are not dependent on whether Matthew\u2019s appeal to Isaiah is convincing.<\/p>\n So everybody calm down.<\/p>\n As the prediction of Jesus, Matthew\u2019s use of Isaiah 7:14 isn\u2019t very convincing. Or better, it is <\/em>convincing\u2014it just depends on what you\u2019re looking for.<\/p>\n The Greek word for \u201cvirgin\u201d in Matthew 1:23 is parth\u00e9nos\u00a0<\/em>(impress your friends), which means more or less a young woman beyond puberty but who is not yet married, and so one can assume a virgin. No problem so far.<\/p>\n Matthew is citing here the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint (nerd click here<\/a>). And the Septuagint\u2019s parth\u00e9nos<\/em>\u00a0is a translation of the Hebrew word `almah.<\/em> And here is where things get interesting.<\/p>\n `Almah<\/em> doesn\u2019t mean \u201cvirgin\u201d but a young woman who may or may not be married. It could<\/em> include virginity, but it doesn\u2019t have to. In fact, it would be unusual, since Hebrew has a perfectly good, and common, word for virgin, betulah.<\/em><\/p>\n But still, from a linguistic point of view, `almah<\/em> in Isaiah 7:14\u00a0could<\/em> mean \u201cvirgin.\u201d But contextually it doesn\u2019t. It most definitely doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n The context of this prophecy in Isaiah (and it\u00a0is<\/em> a prophecy\u2014but hold that thought) is the impending invasion of the Assyrian war machine led by King Tiglath-pileser III in the mid 730s BCE. In a desperate effort to not be annihilated, the king of the northern kingdom of Israel, Pekah, and his northern neighbor Aram (Syria), ruled by King Rezin, decided to form a coalition against the Assyrians\u2014often referred to as the Syro-Ephraimite Coalition.<\/p>\n Pekah and Rezin really wanted the southern kingdom of Judah, ruled by King Ahaz, to join them but he was reluctant. So they thought they\u2019d attack the southern capital of Jerusalem first to force him to comply.<\/p>\n Anyway, Ahaz is freaking out at the thought of this attack, and, to make a long story short, Isaiah gives Ahaz a sign, which has to do with the birth of a son to an `almah,<\/em> which most English translations render (correctly) as \u201cyoung woman.\u201d Some refuse to budge and say \u201cvirgin\u201d (so as not to upset Bible readers who might be cross-referencing Matthew 1:23) but then bury in a footnote \u201cor \u2018young woman.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n The point here is that \u201cyoung woman\u201d is correct.<\/p>\n And this is why we need to keep reading past verse 14.<\/p>\n Verses 15-16 tells us that the child<\/p>\n . . . shall eat curds and honey by the time<\/strong> he knows how to refuse the evil and choose good. For before\u00a0<\/strong>the child knows how to refuse evil and choose the good,\u00a0the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.<\/strong><\/p>\n So what does that mean? Curds (something dairy) and honey (something nectar) are peacetime foods, not the kind of things you\u2019d eat during a siege. And how old would a child have to be to have the capacity to choose good over evil? Good question. If it\u2019s my kids I\u2019d say 30, but normally let\u2019s say a few years.<\/p>\n The point is that\u00a0before<\/em> the child is old enough to make moral choices, the Syro-Ephraimite siege will have come to an end. There will be peace. That<\/em> is the miracle of the story, not the nature of the birth. If it helps, Begin reading at Isaiah 7:1 and when you get to verse 14 say \u201cyoung woman\u201d and then keep reading. It makes perfect sense.<\/p>\n You might ask\u2014and you probably should\u2014what about the child\u2019s name? Emmanuel. \u201cGod with us.\u201d Doesn\u2019t that speak to the miraculous nature of this birth?<\/p>\n No.<\/p>\n The Hebrew is Im-manu-el\u2014literally with-us-God. But think of how many people in the Old Testament have \u201csentence names\u201d ending with \u201cEl\u201d (God).<\/p>\n Daniel means, \u201cGod is my judge,\u201d but that doesn\u2019t mean that the man bearing that name is God. There are dozens and dozens of sentence names in the Bible that contain \u201cEl\u201d but they don\u2019t identify the bearer of the name as God. Rather, those names say something about God.<\/p>\n So naming the child Immanuel (Emmanuel is reflecting later Latin spelling) is saying something about God, that God is with Ahaz and has nothing to fear. The child\u2019s birth to a young woman and his early life is the sign of what God will do. <\/em>The child isn\u2019t the miracle in the story. The deliverance of outnumbered Judah from the coalition is.<\/p>\n So is Matthew stupid? Can\u2019t he read the context as well as we can? Sure he could. But Matthew is engaging here (as he normally does\u2014just track his use of the Old Testament in chapters 1-2 alone) in the creative interpretation of his Bible (the Greek Septuagint) and tying that story in Isaiah to the birth of Jesus by means of a \u201chook word.\u201d<\/p>\n Such creative handling of texts (often called \u201cmidrash\u201d) was a common Jewish method of interpretation at the time, and we need to keep in mind that Matthew\u2019s Gospel is likely aimed at a Jewish readership.<\/p>\n We might think\u2014and I hear this objection often\u2014that such creative interpretation would never have convinced anyone. But that is thinking like a modern westerner, and not like an ancient Jew. They wouldn\u2019t have batted an eyelash. But more likely, Matthew wasn\u2019t trying to convince anyone that Isaiah 7 \u201cproves\u201d Jesus. He is writing to those who already believed, which included Jews, and such creative connections to Israel\u2019s story would have been seen as captivatingly ingenious.<\/p>\n [If you want to read more about the New Testament\u2019s use of the Old, search this blog or check out\u00a0The Bible Tells Me So<\/em><\/a> and\u00a0Inspiration\u00a0and Incarnation<\/a>.<\/i>]<\/p>\n More from this series: <\/strong><\/p>\n The Pete Ruins Christmas Series, Part 1: The \u201cPete Ruins Christmas\u201d Series, Part 1: Christmas in America and the Old Testament<\/a><\/p>\n The Pete Ruins Christmas Series, Part 2: For Unto Us a Child is Born<\/a><\/p>\n Podcast Episode 230: Pete & Jared Ruin Christmas<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\nThe miracle here does not concern the nature of the child\u2019s conception, but that the child will be a sign of what will soon come to pass.<\/h2>\n
\n