alternate version: King
David - Short story about King David and Bathsheba.
This is a video from a project aimed to teach children the Bible:
When touring on the palace roof, King David sees an attractive woman bathing on one of the rooftops of the city.
It's Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite.
Uriah the Hittite, fighting in David's army, doesn't know that during his stay at the front David took Bathsheba to the palace and impregnated her.
David fears that the act of adultery will be revealed, and makes sure the Oriya the Hittite will not return from the battle
He takes Bathsheba, the widow, as wife and they had a son.
God is angry at David...
(Book of Samuel 12:1 - 12:13)
1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said
unto him: 'There were two men in one city: the one rich, and the other poor.
2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds;
3 but the poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb, which he had
bought and reared; and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it
did eat of his own morsel, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and
was unto him as a daughter.
4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of
his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come
unto him, but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come
to him.'
5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to
Nathan: 'As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this deserveth to die;
6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and
because he had no pity.'
7 And Nathan said to David: 'Thou art the man. {S} Thus saith the
LORD, the God of Israel: I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee
out of the hand of Saul;
8 and I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy
bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that were too
little, then would I add unto thee so much more.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the LORD, to do that which is
evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his
wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of
the children of Ammon.
10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy house; because
thou hast despised Me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy
wife.
11 Thus saith the LORD: Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of
thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto
thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
12 For thou didst it secretly; but I will do this thing before all
Israel, and before the sun.'
13 And David said unto Nathan: 'I have sinned against the LORD.'
Mostrando postagens com marcador The Hebrew Bible. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador The Hebrew Bible. Mostrar todas as postagens
quarta-feira, 18 de julho de 2012
terça-feira, 1 de maio de 2012
עשרת הדברות Ten Commandments
Reading in Hebrew (Yemenite), followed by Aramaic and Arabic [עברית ארמית ערבית]
2 I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
3 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
4 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
5 and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
2 I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
3 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
4 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
5 and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
segunda-feira, 9 de abril de 2012
Is Muhammad in the Torah? II
Now, from Maimonides' Epistle to Yemen:
(In this short response, Maimonides stated that "the claim that Mohammed is alluded to in the Bible is based upon nonsensical interpretations recognized as such even by the Moslems themselves".
But things have changed... and apparently for worse, since many Muslims are using the same old and discredited claims today. Claims that, almost a thousand years ago, were considered "ridiculous and absurd in the extreme"...)
(In this short response, Maimonides stated that "the claim that Mohammed is alluded to in the Bible is based upon nonsensical interpretations recognized as such even by the Moslems themselves".
But things have changed... and apparently for worse, since many Muslims are using the same old and discredited claims today. Claims that, almost a thousand years ago, were considered "ridiculous and absurd in the extreme"...)
"In your letter you mention that the apostle has spurred on a number of people to believe that several verses in Scripture allude to the Madman [i.e., Muhammad], such as "bime'od me'od" (Genesis 17:20), "he shined forth from Mount Paran" (Deuteronomy 33:1), "a prophet from the midst of thee" (Deuteronomy 18:15), and the promise to Ishmael "I will make him a great nation" (Genesis 17:20).
These arguments have been rehearsed so often that they have become nauseating. It is not enough to declare that they are altogether feeble; nay, to cite as proofs these verses is ridiculous and absurd in the extreme. For these are not matters that can confuse the minds of anyone. Neither the untutored multitutde nor the apostates themselves who delude others with them, believe in them or entertain any illusions about them. Their purpose in citing these verses is to win favor in the eyes of the Gentiles by demonstrating that they believe the statement of the Qur'an that Mohammed was mentioned in the Torah. But the Muslims themselves put no faith in their own arguments, they neither accept nor cite them, because they are manifestly so fallacious. Inasmuch as the Muslims could not find a single proof in the entire Bible nor a reference or possible allusion to their prophet which they could utilize, they were compelled to accuse us saying, "You have altered the text of the Torah, and expunged every trace of the name of Mohammed therefrom." They could find nothing stronger than this ignominious argument the falsity of which is easily demonstrated to one and all by the following facts:
First, Scripture was translated into Syriac, Greek, Persian and Latin hundreds of years before the appearance of Mohammed. Secondly, there is a uniform tradition as to the text of the Bible both in the East and the West, with the result that no differences in the text exist at all, not even in the vocalization, for they are all correct. Nor do any differences effecting the meaning exist. The motive for their accusation lies therefore, in the absence of any allusion to Mohammed in the Torah."
And he goes on:
"The phrase "a great nation" cited above does not connote a people in possession of prophecy or a Law, but merely one large in numbers just as in reference to idolaters Scripture says "nations greater and mightier than yourselves." (Deuteronomy 11:23). Similarly, the phrase "bime'od me'od" simply signifies "exceedingly." Were there any allusion in the verse to Mohammed, then it would have read "and I shall bless him bimeod meod," and whoever likes to hang on to a spider's web might then discover a reference to Mohammed therein. As it is, since Scripture says "I shall increase him bimeod meod," it can only denote an extravagant increment in numbers.
There is no question that the Divine assurance to Abraham to bless his descendants, to reveal the Torah to them, and to make them the Chosen People, refers only to the offspring of Isaac. For Ishmael is mentioned as an adjunct and appendage in the blessing of Isaac, which reads "and also of the son of the bond-woman will I make a nation." (Genesis 21:13). This verse suggests that Isaac holds a primary position and Ishmael a subordinate place. This point is made even more explicit in the blessing which ignores Ishmael entirely. "For in Isaac shall seed be called in thee." (Genesis 21:12). The meaning of God's promise to Abraham is that the issue of Ishmael will be vast in numbers but neither pre-eminent nor the object of divine favor, nor distinguished for the attainment of excellence. Not because of them will Abraham be famed or celebrated, but by the noted and illustrious scions of Isaac. The phrase "shall be called" simply means, shall be renowned, as it does in the verse, "Let thy name be called in them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." (Genesis 48:16).
Other verses also indicate that when God promised Abraham that His law would be vouchsafed to his children as is implied in the words "And I will be their God" (Genesis 17:8), He meant Isaac to the exclusion of Ishmael as is intimated in the declaration "But My covenant will I establish with Isaac" (Genesis 17:21), although He had already conferred His favor upon Ishmael when He said "Behold I have blessed him" (Genesis 17:20). Similarly, Isaac by bestowing the blessing of Abraham upon Jacob exclusively, debarred Esau from it, as we read in his benediction "And may He give you the blessing of Abraham" (Genesis 28:4). To sum up, the Divine covenant made with Abraham to grant the sublime Law to his descendants referred exclusively to those who belonged to the stock of both Isaac and Jacob. Hence the prophet expresses his gratitude to God for "the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath unto Isaac, which He established unto Jacob for a statute, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant." (Psalms 105:9, I Chronicles 16:16)."
"The argument from the phrase "He shined forth from Mount Paran" (Deuteronomy 33:2) is easily refutable. Shined is past tense. Had Scripture employed the future tense "he will shine forth from Mount Paran" then the imposters might have had a semblance of truth on their side. However the use of the past tense "he shined forth" demonstrates that this phrase describes an event that has taken place, namely the theophany on Sinai. When the Deity was about to reveal Himself on Sinai, the heavenly light did not descend suddenly like a thunder-bolt, but came down gently, manifesting itself gradually first from the top of one mountain, then from another, until He reached His abode on Sinai. This notion is implied in the verse "The Lord revealed himself at Sinai, after His light had radiated to them from Seir and glimmered from Mount Paran." (Deuteronomy 33:2). Mark welll, that the phrase "unto them" refers to Israel. Note also how Scripture indicates the various gradations in the intensity of the Divine Splendor. It speaks of the light that glimmered from Mount Paran which is further removed from Sinai, but of the light that radiated from Mount Seir, which is nearer to it, and finally of the revelation of the full splendor of God on Sinai which was the goal of the theophany as is related in the verse "And the glory of God abode on Mount Sinai" (Exodus 24:16), "and the Lord came from Sinai". (Deuteronomy 33:2).
Similarly, the idea that the light descended gradually from mountain to mountain is conveyed in Deborah's description of the grandeur of Israel at the Revelation on Sinai when she exclaimed "Lord when Thou didst go forth out of Seir, when Thou didst march out of the field of Edom" (Judges 5:4). Our sages of blessed memory, tell us that God, may He be praised and exalted, charged a prophet before the time of Moses to go to the Romans and another to go to the Arabs with the purpose of presenting them the Torah, but each of them in turn spurned it. When Moses was later sent to us we signified our acceptance in the words "All that the Lord hath spoken will we do, and obey" (Exodus 24:7). The aforementioned event happened before the Sinaitic Revelation, consequently Scripture speaks in the past tense: "He came, radiated forth, and shone," which proves that no prophecy is intended in these words."
You write in your letter, that some people were duped by the argument that Mohammed is alluded to in the verse "A prophet will the Lord thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren" (Deuteronomy 18:15), while others remained unconvinced because of the phrase "from the midst of thee." It is most astonishing that some folks should be deluded by such specious proof, while others were almost persuaded, were it not for the phrase "from the midst of thee." Under these circumstance it is incumbent upon you to concentrate and understand my view in the matter. Remember that it is not right to take a passage out of its context and to draw inferences from it. It is imperative to take into consideration the preceding and following statements in order to fathom the writer's meaning and purpose before making any deductions. Were it otherwise, then it would be possible to assert that Scripture has prohibited obedience to any prophet, and interdicted belief in miracles, by quoting the verse, "Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet," (Deuteronomy 13:4). It could likewise be affirmed that a positive command exists requiring us to worship idols, by citing the verse "And ye shall serve other gods" (Deuteronomy 11:16). Other illustrations could be multiplied ad libidinem. To sum up, it is wrong to interpret any given verse apart from its context.
In order to comprehend unequivocally the verse under discussion namely, "A prophet will the Lord thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren," it is necessary to ascertain its context. The beginning of the paragraph whence the verse is taken, contains prohibitions of the acts of soothsaying, augury, divination, astrology, sorcery, incantation and the like. The Gentiles believe that through these practices they can predict the future course of events and take the necessary precautions to forestall them. The interdiction of these occult proceedings were accompanied with the explanation that the Gentiles believe they can depend upon them to determine future happeneings. But you may not do so. You will learn about the time to come from a prophet who will rise up among you, whose predictions will come true without fail. You will thus arrive at a foreknowledge of circumstances without being obliged to resort to augury, divination, astrology and the like, for he will spare you that. Matters will be facilitated for you by the fact that this prophet will live within your borders. You will not be compelled to go in search after him from country to country, nor to travel to distant parts, as is implied in the phrase, "from the midst of thee."
Moreover, another notion is conveyed in the words "from the midst of thee from thy brethren like unto me," namely, that he will be one of you, that is, a Jew. The obvious deduction is that you shall be distinguished above all others for the sole possession of prophecy. The words "like unto me" were specifically added to indicate that only the descendants of Jacob are meant. For the phrase "of thy brethren" by itself might have been misunderstood and taken to refer also to Esau and Ishmael, since we do find Israel addressing Esau as brother, for example, in the verse, "Thus saith thy brother Israel" (Numbers 20:14). On the other hand, the words "like unto me," do not denote a prophet as great as Moses, for this interpretation is precluded by the statement "And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses." (Deuteronomy 34:10). The general drift of the chapter points to the correctness of our interpretation and will be confirmed by the succession of the verses, to wit "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire etc.," (Deuteronomy 18:10), "For these nations, that thou art to dispossess, hearken unto soothsayers, and unto diviners; but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do ." (Verse 14). "A prophet will the Lord thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of they brethren, like unto me," (Verse 15). It is obviously clear that the prophet alluded to here will not be a person who will produce a new law, or found a new religion. He will merely enable us to dispense with diviners and astrologers, and will be available for consultation concerning anything that may befall us, just as the Gentiles confer with soothsayers and prognosticators. Thus we find Saul advising with Samuel concerning his lost asses, as we read, "Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he said: 'Come and let us go to the seer'; for he that is now called a prophet was beforetime called a seer." (Samuel 9:9)."
"Our disbelief in the prophecy of Omar and Zeid is not due to the fact that they are non-Jews, as the unlettered folk imagine, and in consequence of which they are compelled to justify their standpoint by the Biblical statement "from thy midst, out of thy brethren." For Job, Zophar, Bildad, Eliphaz, and Elihu are all considered prophets and are non-Jews. On the other hand, although Hananiah, the son of Azur was a Jew, he was deemed an accursed and false prophet. Whether one should yield credence to a prophet or not depends upon the nature of his doctrines, and not upon his race, as we shall explain presently. Our ancestors have witnessed Moses, our Teacher, foremost among the prophets, holding a colloquy with the Divinity, reposed implicit faith in him when they said to him, "Go thou near and hear," (Deuteronomy 5:24). Now he assured us that no other law remained in heaven that would subsequently be revealed, nor would there even be another Divine dispensation, as the verse, "It is not in heaven," (Deuteronomy 30:12) implies. Scripture prohibits us from making any amendments to the Law or eliminating anything, for we read "Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it" (Deuteronomy 13:1). We pledged and obligated ourselves to God to abide by His Law, we, our children, and our children's children, until the end of time as Scripture says "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever." (Deuteronomy 29:28). Any prophet, therefore, no matter what his pedigree is, be he priest, Levite, or Amalekite, is perfidious even if he asserts that only one of the precepts of the Torah is void, in view of the Mosaic pronouncement "unto us and unto our children forever." Such a one we would declare a false prophet and would execute him if we had jurisdiction over him. We would take no notice of the miracles that he might perform, just as we would disregard the wonder-working of one who seeks to lure people to idolatry, as we are enjoined in the verse "And the sign or wonder came to pass ... thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet" (Deuteronomy 13:3). Since Moses, of blessed memory, has prohibited image worship for all the time, we know that the miracles of a would-be-seducer to idolatry are wrought by trickery and sorcery, Similarly, since Moses has taught us that the Law is eternal, we stamp definitely as a prevaricator any one who argues that it was destined to be in force for a fixed duration of time, because he contravenes Moses. Consequently we pay no attention to his assertions or supernatural performances.
Inasmuch as we do not believe in Moses because of his miracles, we are under no obligations to institute comparison between his miracles and those of others. Our everlastingly firm trust and steadfast faith in Moses is due to the fact that our forebears as well as he, had heard the Divine discourse on Sinai, as it is intimated in the Scripture, "and they will also believe thee forever" (Exodus 19:9). This event is analogous to the situation of two witnesses who observed a certain act simultaneously. Each of them saw what his fellow saw and each of them is sure of the truth of the statement of his fellow, and does not require proof or demonstration, whereas other people, to whom they would report their testimony, would not be convinced without confirmation or certification. Similarly, we of the Jewish faith, are convinced of the truth of the prophecy of Moses, inasmuch as our ancestors in common with him witnessed the Divine revelation on Sinai, and not merely because of his miracles. He performed all of these only as the occasion demanded and as is recorded in Scripture.
We do not give credence to the tenets of a miracle worker, in the same way we trust in the truth of Moses our Teacher, nor does any analogy exist between them. This distinction is a fundamental principle of our religion, but seems to have fallen into oblivion, and has been disregarded by our co-religionists. This thought was present in the mind of Solomon when he addressed the Gentiles in behalf of Israel, "What will you see in the Shulamite? as it were a dance of two companies." (Song of Songs 7:1). The verse means to say, "If you can produce anything like the revelation on Sinai then we shall concede some misgivings concerning Moses."
Isaiah’s prophecy of the "virgin birth" (Isaiah 7:14)
"Therefore the Lord shall give unto
you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and
she will call his name Emanuel" (God is with us).
This verse is applied by the Christians as an evidence of their faith. The prophet, they say, predicted here, that an Israelitish virgin would conceive, and bare a son (Jesus) under the influence of the Holy Ghost, as is related in the Gospel of Matthew.
Refutation—This assertion rests solely on the support of imagination. The word עַלְמָה (young woman) used in the verse, does not mean a virgin, as they maintain, but signifies merely young woman. See Genesis 24:14, where Abraham’s servant says, first, "And there shall be a damsel הַנַּעֲרָה to whom I say," etc.: and afterwards, he says, "and there shall be a young woman הָעַלְמָה who cometh out to draw water," etc. Both נַעֲרָה and עַלְמָה can be applied either to a maiden or a married woman.
With regard to a maiden, we find in Genesis 24:28, "the young woman run and told her father’s household:" and, in Ruth 2:5, "To whom belongeth this young woman?" (הַנַּעֲרָה). In the same way, we meet with the word עַלְמָה meaning simply young female: for instance, Exodus 2:8, "And the young woman went and called the mother of the child." As we express in Hebrew נַעֲרָה and עַלְמָה indiscriminately for a virgin or a married woman, so we apply, respecting a young man, both נָעַר and עֶלֶם. See 1 Samuel 17:58, "Whose son is this lad?" (עֶלֶם). And in the same chapter, verse 56, "Whose son is this young man?" (נָעַר). The age of adolescency is likewise expressed both by עֲלוּמִים and by נְעוּרִים. See Isaiah 54:4, "and thou shalt forget the shame of עֲלוּמִים thy youth." And Jeremiah 31:19, "and the disgrace of נְעוּרִים my youth." This proves, that the female in minor age, whatever her state may be, is denominated alike by נַעֲרָה or עַלְמָה in the same manner as the young man in minor years is styled נָעַר or עֶלֶם. The wife of Isaiah, who was still youthful, is termed in Scripture, עַלְמָה young woman. Moreover, the sense of the chapter is altogether adverse to the exposition of the Christians. It refers to Ahaz, King of Judah, who had been in great trouble and consternation on account of the confederacy which the monarchs (Pekah, King of Israel, and Rezin, King of Syria,) had determined on, namely, to besiege and subjugate Jerusalem. See Isaiah 7:2, "And it was told to the House of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim; and his heart was moved, and the heart of the people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." Hence, the Lord sent to him the prophet Isaiah, to give him courage, that his heart should not be dismayed at their approach—since their design would assuredly be frustrated. To convince him of this, the Almighty gave him a sign, or token that Jerusalem would remain unmolested, and that the territories of Samaria and Damascus would soon be abandoned and deserted. Had it been the purpose of inspired writ to announce, as the Christians maintain, the advent of Jesus, how could Ahaz be concerned in a sign that could only be realized many centuries after his death, or how could any promise cheer his heart that was not to be fulfilled in his own days? It is true, there is also a prophecy, in this chapter, relating to calamities suspended over the hostile kings, and which happened within sixty-five years subsequent to the existing danger; "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be no people." But the computation of sixty-five years did not commence from the date of the prophecy. At the period when the prophet spoke, his young wife was pregnant, and bore a son, who was first called Emanuel (God is with us), and afterwards, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (speed the plunder, hasten the spoil). "For," says Isaiah, "before the boy shall know how to call father and mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the King of Assyria." The fulfillment of this event is thus recorded in 2 Kings 16:9, "And the King of Assyria hearkened unto him, and the King of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the captives to Kir, and slew Rezin." In the same book (15:29-30) the fate of Pekah, King of Israel, is described in the following words. "In the days of Pekah, the son of Remaliah, King of Israel, came to Tiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abel-Beth Maachah, and Janoah, and Kedeth, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria." Verse 30, "And Hosea, the son of Elah, made a conspiracy against Pekah, the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham, the son of Uzziah." The word of the prophet Isaiah וּבְעוֹד שִׁשִּׁים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנָה "within sixty-five years," is to be understood, as at the completion of these years, counted from the time of the prophecy of Amos, who predicted, concerning Damascus (in his book, 1:5), "And I will break the bolt of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitants of the valley, and even the support of the scepter from Beth-Eden, and the people of Syria shall go into captivity into Kir, saith the Lord." About Israel, the same prophet predicted (ibid 7:11), "And Israel shall be exiled from its territory." Hence it appears, that before three years had elapsed after this announcement, the Syrians, and many of the Israelites, with the Kings, Rezin and Pekah, were carried into captivity to Assyria. In the twentieth year of Jotham, which was the fourth of Ahaz, Hosea, the son of Elah, killed Pekah, the son of Remaliah, and reigned in his stead.
There is here a variation of statements with regard to these event, twenty years being ascribed to the government of Jotham, while subsequently it is mentioned that the occupation of the throne only lasted sixteen years, so that the four additional years must be considered to belong to the reign of his son Ahaz. We reconcile this discrepancy by the view, that, Ahaz having been a wicked king, Scripture prefers adverting to the departed pious King Jotham than to the reigning monarch, the ungodly Ahaz. Thus the sixty-five years expired in the ninth year of Hosea, the son of Elah, when the complete exile of all Israel took place. The following calculation will show the historical connection between the prophecy and its fulfillment. Amos prophesied two years before the earthquake, which occurred in the seventeenth year of the reign of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, King of Israel. This king ruled twenty-four years after the earthquake. Then Menahem governed twelve, Pekahiah two, Pekah twenty, and Hosea nine years, which make together the sum of sixty-five years. The seven months of the reign of Zechariah and Shalum are omitted from the calculation, being included in the years of the other kings. This calculation has been adopted by several Christian authors. If our opponents should ask who the young woman was to whom Isaiah alluded when he said, "She is with child, and shall bear a son;" we reply, that she was (as we have before asserted) the prophet’s wife. This is proved by Isaiah 8:3, "And I came to the prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son; and the Lord said unto me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz." The question may then arise, How could he be called so after the name Emanuel had been previously given to him to afford a sign to Ahaz? We answer, by showing that the child received not two but three names, in consideration of the three kings concerned in the prophecy. Referring to the King of Judah he was named Emanuel (God is with us), to indicate that from the time of his birth peace would prevail in Judea.
Alluding to the King of Israel, he was called Maher-shalal, and in allusion to the King of Syria he received the name of Hash-baz, pointing out by the two latter names, that those monarchs, with all their possessions, would soon become the spoil of the Assyrian Kings. The two names are of a synonymous character, and in perfect accordance with each other. Therefore the prophet says, shortly after mentioning Emanuel (7:16), "for before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorest shall be forsaken of both the kings." In the same style he repeats after the name of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "For before the child shall have knowledge to call, My father and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the King of Assyria." Seeing that these two verses are in perfect consonance with each other, the child spoken of must needs be the very same, and he being the son of Isaiah, stands a sign and token to these three kings. The intention to express several events by giving several names to one individual, is evident from the double appellation.
Shear Jashub (i.e. a remainder shall return) is an illustration of the ten tribes who are to remain in their captivity, while the two united tribes of Judah and Benjamin were to return from Babylon to Jerusalem at the expiration of the seventy years. On that account the prophet said, after the second son had been born unto him, "Here I stand, and the children which God has given me for signs and tokens in Israel;" and for this purpose only the Almighty bid him meet Ahaz, accompanied by his son Shear Jashub. Though the latter son was then but very young, his two names with opposite meanings stood as tokens for the future destiny of Ephraim (the ten tribes) on the one hand, and of Judah on the other.
R. David Kimchi has given a forced interpretation to the passage on Emanuel; believing that this individual was not the son of Isaiah, but of the king. The prophet expressing himself (chapter 8:8), "And the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Emanuel;" our expositor supposes, that the possessive, thy, could not have been addressed to a person who was not a son of the ruler of the country. But this conclusion is, to me, quite unfounded. We find, frequently, אַרְצְךָ (thy land), meaning thy native land, or country. See, for instance, Genesis 12:1, "And the Lord spake unto Abraham, go out of thy land." Now, it is well known, that Abraham was not the lord of the land which he was ordered to quit; but that the word his land could only be applied to it inasmuch as it was the land of his birth. See also Jeremiah 12:15, "And I shall bring them back, every man to his heritage, and every man to his land." Moreover, suppose Emanuel was the son of a king, how could the land of Israel have been called his country, since he did not succeed his father in the government?
It appears to me, that when Isaiah prophesied, saying, "Behold, the woman is with child," he was not aware that he spoke about his own wife – just as Samuel was not conscious that he prophesied concerning David, when he said to Saul, 1 Samuel 13:14, "The Lord has sought unto Himself a man after His own heart, and has appointed him prince over His people." Further, when Samuel said (chapter 15:28), "The Lord has torn away from thee the kingdom of Israel, and has given it to thy neighbor, who is better than thee;" for being at the house of Jesse, he knew which of the sons he was to anoint for the kingdom; so that when remarking to Eliab, he exclaimed, "Surely, the Lord’s anointed is before Him;" but only when he came to David, then the Lord told him to anoint him. With the same ignorance of things unrevealed, in the moments of inspiration, Isaiah prophesied on the young woman, until the token given him in the second prophecy rendered it manifest to him; the Lord saying then to him (chapter 8:1), "Take unto thee a large scroll, and write upon it with man’s pen, Maher-shalal-hash-baz." After which Isaiah writes, "I took unto myself faithful witnesses; namely, Uriah, the priest, and Zechariah, the son of Jebarachiah; and I came near to the prophetess, and she conceived, and bare a son, and the Lord said unto me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz." It was necessary he should take faithful witnesses, in order to record all the minute parts of the Divine bidding, since he himself had to fulfill all.
Scripture introduces the words, "And it was told to the House of David," instead of to "Ahaz," etc. We account for this by the fact, that Ahaz was a wicked man; and it was thought proper, therefore, to indicate that the miracle did not occur for the merit of this king, but for the merit of his ancestor. The disputant may ask, "In what did, then, the sign and miracle consist, if the prophet predicted merely that a married woman would conceive and bear a son?" We reply, that the sign and the miracle, undeniably, consisted in the assurance of an event that could not be foreseen and foretold by a profane man. Conception and birth do not depend on human will; and many an infant is born that never sees the light: nor can we know whether the mother will give birth to a son or a daughter. Another miracle is, the prediction that the mother of the new-born child would call it Emanuel; and this prediction fulfilled, vouches for the truth of the additional prophecy, that Judah and Jerusalem would be saved from the attack of two belligerent kings. Again, it is a miracle, that the child, after its birth, was not to suck from the breasts of its mother, like other sucklings, but would feed on butter and honey. See Isaiah 7:15, "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good." This fare, and the abstaining from mother’s milk shall endow him with knowledge to avoid the evil and to prefer the good, and make him excel all other children in intellect. The activity of free agency is to commence with him as soon as he can call father and mother-which renders him pre-eminent among other children of his age. The confirmation of this event is in chapter 8 of Isaiah.
The Christians maintain, that if that child had been born from the young woman like other children of men, his name could not have been called Emanuel (God is with us): but that this name was quite applicable to Jesus, who was a compound of the Divine and human nature.
Refutation—It is the Hebrew idiom to join the name of the Almighty to the proper names of men, and even to inanimate objects; for instance, Samuel, Zuriel, Uziel, Michael, Eliezer, Elijah, Isaiah, Zurishaddai, etc. In Genesis 33:20, an altar was called, "El-Elohe Israel" (i.e., God is the God of Israel). In Exodus 17:15, an altar is called, "The Lord is my banner." We find the application in Jeremiah 33:16, "The Lord is our righteousness." In Ezekiel 48:35, we find the expression, "The Lord is there," which is applied to Jerusalem, the Holy city, as a name which will be given to it at the time of the Messiah, when the glorious presence of the Almighty shall return to it. That, however, Jesus should be called by the name Emanuel is not affirmed by any passage of the Gospel. We only find in Matthew 1:20, that the angel said to Joseph in a dream, "Fear not to receive Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Jesus (יֵשׁוּעַ), for he shall save his people from their sins. 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 Emanuel," etc. It is further stated, "And Joseph took unto him Mary his wife, and knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born son, and she called his name Jesus." In Luke 2:21, we find, "And when the eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child he was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb." From this it appears that Emanuel was a different individual from Jesus, for Jesus was in no instance called Emanuel—as to the name Jesus, it was given to him by mere chance, there were many other Jews named Jesus. See Ezra 2, 3 and 10, and the 2nd book of Chronicles 31. The Jews spell Jesus יֵשׁוּ, because the ע is omitted in the pronunciation of the Christians; but suppose the ע is to be retained, there is no inference deducible from that in favor of their faith, as Matthew tried to establish for the Christians, to apply the name of Jesus also to the son of Sirach, who wrote a book called Ecclesiasticus.
Our disputant may ask, Of whom did Isaiah prophesy in chapter 9:6 (9:7 in the English bible), when he said, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: on his shoulders shall be the government: and they shall call him Wonderful, Counselor, Almighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of [his] government and peace there shall be no end [without end, Hebrew] upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever"?
We give the following reply: Those passages refer to Hezekiah, King of Judah, during whose government Israel experienced, through a divine intercession, a signal deliverance from Sennacherib, King of Assyria, who had raised a siege against Jerusalem with an army of a hundred and eighty thousand valiant men. That this great miracle, namely, the fall of the camp of Sennacherib, referred to in the verses under consideration, was occasioned from the regard entertained by the Almighty for "the virtue of the child born unto us," and which, at the time of the prophecy, was already "given unto us." For when Ahaz ascended the throne, Hezekiah had already attained his ninth year. The truth of this exposition is borne out by the verses antecedent and subjoined to the passage "for a child has been born unto us." The latter word of the 6th verse of the 9th chapter of Isaiah must be rendered thus: "And he who is Wonderful, a Counselor and Omnipotent God; a Father of Eternity, he called his (the child’s) name Prince of Peace." The child born unto Ahaz is entitled the Prince of Peace because of the peace granted to Israel in the days of Hezekiah.
The preceding epithets are applied to the Almighty as indications of marvelous occurrences accompanying the life of Hezekiah, "God showed Himself Wonderful," causing for his (Hezekiah’s) sake, the shade of the sundial to recede; as "Counselor," the Lord established his own designs, and frustrated those of Sennacherib; as "the Omnipotent God," He evinced His divine attribute by suddenly destroying the immense army of the invading king; as "Father of Eternity," and Ruler of time, who, according to His pleasure, adds to and diminishes from the life of mortals, He manifested His power by prolonging the life of Hezekiah for a period of fifteen years.
The opponent may object to the above translation, by pleading, that he finds in his version of Isaiah the verb (וַיִּקָּרֵא) in the passive, viz.: "and his name was called, and not, as we are supposed to read, וַיִּקָּרֵא taking the verb in the active form (he called his name), so that the epithets which follow apply to the child, whose name the Almighty called "Wonderful," etc.
We know well that Jerome has made a practice of accommodating Scripture to the notions of his own creed; and has endeavored to establish an authority for his belief in the Divinity of Jesus. All endeavors, however, have failed. Even after adopting the reading of Jerome, we should be entitled to assign the above epithets to Hezekiah, since we have already proved that the nature of the holy language allows application of the name of the Almighty to human beings, and even to inanimate objects, inclusively. To give to Jesus the above appellations is altogether incompatible with his own history. How can he claim the names "Wonderful" and "Counsellor," when it is remembered, that one of his disciples frustrated his designs, and betrayed him to his enemies? How can he merit the title, "Powerful" or "Omnipotent God," who suffered an unnatural death? How can he be the "Father of Eternity," who did not attain even half of the natural period of human life? How can he be distinguished as the "Prince of Peace" whereas, no peace existed in his days: and as he himself asserted, by saying, "I am not come to bring peace into the earth, but the sword." The Christians avail themselves of the passage, "to the increase of government, and peace without end," to oppose us with the following question: — "If the intention of the prophet had been to prophesy an earthly kingdom, how could he say that his (the king’s) government would be without end?" We reply to this, that the expression, "without end," (קץ אין) is a mere figure of speech. We find, similarly, in Isaiah 2:7, "And his land was full of silver and gold, and there was no end to his treasures; and his land was full of horses, and there was no end to his chariots."
Thus we find, also, in Ecclesiastes 4:8, "There is One, and no second, and he has neither son nor brother; and there is no end to all his troubles." At the end of the above prophecy, Isaiah says, chapter 9:6, "On the throne of David, and over his kingdom." This passage is a clear refutation of the Christian doctrine of the Messiah, for Jesus never sat on the throne of David, and never ruled over Israel. Should they interpret the throne of David in a spiritual sense, we must declare that the throne of David never meant anything but in relation to terrestrial government. David sat on a real throne, and his kingdom was a positive reality. Scripture, therefore, treats of it here in that sense only, and does not allude to any visionary kingdom. The expression, to establish it, and support it, "in judgment and righteousness, now and for evermore," shows that his dominion—that is, the dynasty of David—will never perish. And though an interruption has occurred during the time of the captivity, the government, nevertheless, will in the days of the Messiah, return to the scion of David. See Ezekiel 37:25, "And they shall live in it, and their children, and their children’s children, to eternity, and my servant David shall be prince over them for ever." This whole passage refers to the Messiah, as will be shown hereafter. Our opponents may remark, "How can the idea of eternity be understood from the words ‘even for evermore,’ if the government of the House of David ceased from the time of the captivity?" Our answer to this argument is, that an intermediate cessation destroys not the nature of the perpetual duration; for we find that the commandment of circumcision, was enjoined on the posterity of Abraham, as an everlasting covenant, (see Genesis 17:7), "And my covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant;" and, nevertheless, the ceremonial was, from sanitary motives, discontinued during the whole period of the journey through the desert. When, however, the tribes had entered the Land of Promise, the practice of that covenant was resumed, and will remain in force, even in the days of the Messiah, as the Prophets have declared to us. See Isaiah 52:1, "Awake, awake! Put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thee the garments of thy glory, O Jerusalem, thou holy city, for there shall never more enter into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean." The prophet Ezekiel likewise says (chapter 44:9), "Thus saith the Lord God, Any son of an alien, of an uncircumcised heart and of uncircumcised flesh, shall not enter into my sanctuary." Another instance we find in the covenant which the Almighty made with Phineas to grant the high priesthood to him and his posterity for ever; a long suspension occurred among his posterity, for we learn that Eli, Abimelech, and Abiathar officiated as high priests, until King Solomon ascended the throne; nevertheless that dignity reverted to the rightful party, viz., the descendants of Phineas (see 1 Kings 2:26); where it is related that Solomon deposed Abiathar, and placed Zadok in his office. The same is related in 1 Chronicles 29:22, "And Zadok they anointed to be priest" because he was of the lineage of Phineas; and though another interruption in the dignity of priesthood took place during the time of the captivity, it will be restored at the coming of the Messiah; and the words in Numbers 25:13, will be realized, "And it shall belong to him and to his seed after him as an everlasting priesthood." Ezekiel informs us on this point by telling us (chapter 44:15), "And the priests, the Levites, the children of Zadok, who observed the observances of my sanctuary, while the children of Israel strayed from me, they shall come nigh unto me." This prophecy is connected with the Advent of the Messiah, as will be explained in its proper place. We have now given a full refutation to mistaken assertions of our opponents, and having founded our arguments on prophecy, they can only be opposed by opponents of truth itself.
This verse is applied by the Christians as an evidence of their faith. The prophet, they say, predicted here, that an Israelitish virgin would conceive, and bare a son (Jesus) under the influence of the Holy Ghost, as is related in the Gospel of Matthew.
Refutation—This assertion rests solely on the support of imagination. The word עַלְמָה (young woman) used in the verse, does not mean a virgin, as they maintain, but signifies merely young woman. See Genesis 24:14, where Abraham’s servant says, first, "And there shall be a damsel הַנַּעֲרָה to whom I say," etc.: and afterwards, he says, "and there shall be a young woman הָעַלְמָה who cometh out to draw water," etc. Both נַעֲרָה and עַלְמָה can be applied either to a maiden or a married woman.
With regard to a maiden, we find in Genesis 24:28, "the young woman run and told her father’s household:" and, in Ruth 2:5, "To whom belongeth this young woman?" (הַנַּעֲרָה). In the same way, we meet with the word עַלְמָה meaning simply young female: for instance, Exodus 2:8, "And the young woman went and called the mother of the child." As we express in Hebrew נַעֲרָה and עַלְמָה indiscriminately for a virgin or a married woman, so we apply, respecting a young man, both נָעַר and עֶלֶם. See 1 Samuel 17:58, "Whose son is this lad?" (עֶלֶם). And in the same chapter, verse 56, "Whose son is this young man?" (נָעַר). The age of adolescency is likewise expressed both by עֲלוּמִים and by נְעוּרִים. See Isaiah 54:4, "and thou shalt forget the shame of עֲלוּמִים thy youth." And Jeremiah 31:19, "and the disgrace of נְעוּרִים my youth." This proves, that the female in minor age, whatever her state may be, is denominated alike by נַעֲרָה or עַלְמָה in the same manner as the young man in minor years is styled נָעַר or עֶלֶם. The wife of Isaiah, who was still youthful, is termed in Scripture, עַלְמָה young woman. Moreover, the sense of the chapter is altogether adverse to the exposition of the Christians. It refers to Ahaz, King of Judah, who had been in great trouble and consternation on account of the confederacy which the monarchs (Pekah, King of Israel, and Rezin, King of Syria,) had determined on, namely, to besiege and subjugate Jerusalem. See Isaiah 7:2, "And it was told to the House of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim; and his heart was moved, and the heart of the people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." Hence, the Lord sent to him the prophet Isaiah, to give him courage, that his heart should not be dismayed at their approach—since their design would assuredly be frustrated. To convince him of this, the Almighty gave him a sign, or token that Jerusalem would remain unmolested, and that the territories of Samaria and Damascus would soon be abandoned and deserted. Had it been the purpose of inspired writ to announce, as the Christians maintain, the advent of Jesus, how could Ahaz be concerned in a sign that could only be realized many centuries after his death, or how could any promise cheer his heart that was not to be fulfilled in his own days? It is true, there is also a prophecy, in this chapter, relating to calamities suspended over the hostile kings, and which happened within sixty-five years subsequent to the existing danger; "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be no people." But the computation of sixty-five years did not commence from the date of the prophecy. At the period when the prophet spoke, his young wife was pregnant, and bore a son, who was first called Emanuel (God is with us), and afterwards, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (speed the plunder, hasten the spoil). "For," says Isaiah, "before the boy shall know how to call father and mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the King of Assyria." The fulfillment of this event is thus recorded in 2 Kings 16:9, "And the King of Assyria hearkened unto him, and the King of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the captives to Kir, and slew Rezin." In the same book (15:29-30) the fate of Pekah, King of Israel, is described in the following words. "In the days of Pekah, the son of Remaliah, King of Israel, came to Tiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abel-Beth Maachah, and Janoah, and Kedeth, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria." Verse 30, "And Hosea, the son of Elah, made a conspiracy against Pekah, the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham, the son of Uzziah." The word of the prophet Isaiah וּבְעוֹד שִׁשִּׁים וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנָה "within sixty-five years," is to be understood, as at the completion of these years, counted from the time of the prophecy of Amos, who predicted, concerning Damascus (in his book, 1:5), "And I will break the bolt of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitants of the valley, and even the support of the scepter from Beth-Eden, and the people of Syria shall go into captivity into Kir, saith the Lord." About Israel, the same prophet predicted (ibid 7:11), "And Israel shall be exiled from its territory." Hence it appears, that before three years had elapsed after this announcement, the Syrians, and many of the Israelites, with the Kings, Rezin and Pekah, were carried into captivity to Assyria. In the twentieth year of Jotham, which was the fourth of Ahaz, Hosea, the son of Elah, killed Pekah, the son of Remaliah, and reigned in his stead.
There is here a variation of statements with regard to these event, twenty years being ascribed to the government of Jotham, while subsequently it is mentioned that the occupation of the throne only lasted sixteen years, so that the four additional years must be considered to belong to the reign of his son Ahaz. We reconcile this discrepancy by the view, that, Ahaz having been a wicked king, Scripture prefers adverting to the departed pious King Jotham than to the reigning monarch, the ungodly Ahaz. Thus the sixty-five years expired in the ninth year of Hosea, the son of Elah, when the complete exile of all Israel took place. The following calculation will show the historical connection between the prophecy and its fulfillment. Amos prophesied two years before the earthquake, which occurred in the seventeenth year of the reign of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, King of Israel. This king ruled twenty-four years after the earthquake. Then Menahem governed twelve, Pekahiah two, Pekah twenty, and Hosea nine years, which make together the sum of sixty-five years. The seven months of the reign of Zechariah and Shalum are omitted from the calculation, being included in the years of the other kings. This calculation has been adopted by several Christian authors. If our opponents should ask who the young woman was to whom Isaiah alluded when he said, "She is with child, and shall bear a son;" we reply, that she was (as we have before asserted) the prophet’s wife. This is proved by Isaiah 8:3, "And I came to the prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son; and the Lord said unto me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz." The question may then arise, How could he be called so after the name Emanuel had been previously given to him to afford a sign to Ahaz? We answer, by showing that the child received not two but three names, in consideration of the three kings concerned in the prophecy. Referring to the King of Judah he was named Emanuel (God is with us), to indicate that from the time of his birth peace would prevail in Judea.
Alluding to the King of Israel, he was called Maher-shalal, and in allusion to the King of Syria he received the name of Hash-baz, pointing out by the two latter names, that those monarchs, with all their possessions, would soon become the spoil of the Assyrian Kings. The two names are of a synonymous character, and in perfect accordance with each other. Therefore the prophet says, shortly after mentioning Emanuel (7:16), "for before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorest shall be forsaken of both the kings." In the same style he repeats after the name of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "For before the child shall have knowledge to call, My father and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the King of Assyria." Seeing that these two verses are in perfect consonance with each other, the child spoken of must needs be the very same, and he being the son of Isaiah, stands a sign and token to these three kings. The intention to express several events by giving several names to one individual, is evident from the double appellation.
Shear Jashub (i.e. a remainder shall return) is an illustration of the ten tribes who are to remain in their captivity, while the two united tribes of Judah and Benjamin were to return from Babylon to Jerusalem at the expiration of the seventy years. On that account the prophet said, after the second son had been born unto him, "Here I stand, and the children which God has given me for signs and tokens in Israel;" and for this purpose only the Almighty bid him meet Ahaz, accompanied by his son Shear Jashub. Though the latter son was then but very young, his two names with opposite meanings stood as tokens for the future destiny of Ephraim (the ten tribes) on the one hand, and of Judah on the other.
R. David Kimchi has given a forced interpretation to the passage on Emanuel; believing that this individual was not the son of Isaiah, but of the king. The prophet expressing himself (chapter 8:8), "And the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Emanuel;" our expositor supposes, that the possessive, thy, could not have been addressed to a person who was not a son of the ruler of the country. But this conclusion is, to me, quite unfounded. We find, frequently, אַרְצְךָ (thy land), meaning thy native land, or country. See, for instance, Genesis 12:1, "And the Lord spake unto Abraham, go out of thy land." Now, it is well known, that Abraham was not the lord of the land which he was ordered to quit; but that the word his land could only be applied to it inasmuch as it was the land of his birth. See also Jeremiah 12:15, "And I shall bring them back, every man to his heritage, and every man to his land." Moreover, suppose Emanuel was the son of a king, how could the land of Israel have been called his country, since he did not succeed his father in the government?
It appears to me, that when Isaiah prophesied, saying, "Behold, the woman is with child," he was not aware that he spoke about his own wife – just as Samuel was not conscious that he prophesied concerning David, when he said to Saul, 1 Samuel 13:14, "The Lord has sought unto Himself a man after His own heart, and has appointed him prince over His people." Further, when Samuel said (chapter 15:28), "The Lord has torn away from thee the kingdom of Israel, and has given it to thy neighbor, who is better than thee;" for being at the house of Jesse, he knew which of the sons he was to anoint for the kingdom; so that when remarking to Eliab, he exclaimed, "Surely, the Lord’s anointed is before Him;" but only when he came to David, then the Lord told him to anoint him. With the same ignorance of things unrevealed, in the moments of inspiration, Isaiah prophesied on the young woman, until the token given him in the second prophecy rendered it manifest to him; the Lord saying then to him (chapter 8:1), "Take unto thee a large scroll, and write upon it with man’s pen, Maher-shalal-hash-baz." After which Isaiah writes, "I took unto myself faithful witnesses; namely, Uriah, the priest, and Zechariah, the son of Jebarachiah; and I came near to the prophetess, and she conceived, and bare a son, and the Lord said unto me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz." It was necessary he should take faithful witnesses, in order to record all the minute parts of the Divine bidding, since he himself had to fulfill all.
Scripture introduces the words, "And it was told to the House of David," instead of to "Ahaz," etc. We account for this by the fact, that Ahaz was a wicked man; and it was thought proper, therefore, to indicate that the miracle did not occur for the merit of this king, but for the merit of his ancestor. The disputant may ask, "In what did, then, the sign and miracle consist, if the prophet predicted merely that a married woman would conceive and bear a son?" We reply, that the sign and the miracle, undeniably, consisted in the assurance of an event that could not be foreseen and foretold by a profane man. Conception and birth do not depend on human will; and many an infant is born that never sees the light: nor can we know whether the mother will give birth to a son or a daughter. Another miracle is, the prediction that the mother of the new-born child would call it Emanuel; and this prediction fulfilled, vouches for the truth of the additional prophecy, that Judah and Jerusalem would be saved from the attack of two belligerent kings. Again, it is a miracle, that the child, after its birth, was not to suck from the breasts of its mother, like other sucklings, but would feed on butter and honey. See Isaiah 7:15, "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good." This fare, and the abstaining from mother’s milk shall endow him with knowledge to avoid the evil and to prefer the good, and make him excel all other children in intellect. The activity of free agency is to commence with him as soon as he can call father and mother-which renders him pre-eminent among other children of his age. The confirmation of this event is in chapter 8 of Isaiah.
The Christians maintain, that if that child had been born from the young woman like other children of men, his name could not have been called Emanuel (God is with us): but that this name was quite applicable to Jesus, who was a compound of the Divine and human nature.
Refutation—It is the Hebrew idiom to join the name of the Almighty to the proper names of men, and even to inanimate objects; for instance, Samuel, Zuriel, Uziel, Michael, Eliezer, Elijah, Isaiah, Zurishaddai, etc. In Genesis 33:20, an altar was called, "El-Elohe Israel" (i.e., God is the God of Israel). In Exodus 17:15, an altar is called, "The Lord is my banner." We find the application in Jeremiah 33:16, "The Lord is our righteousness." In Ezekiel 48:35, we find the expression, "The Lord is there," which is applied to Jerusalem, the Holy city, as a name which will be given to it at the time of the Messiah, when the glorious presence of the Almighty shall return to it. That, however, Jesus should be called by the name Emanuel is not affirmed by any passage of the Gospel. We only find in Matthew 1:20, that the angel said to Joseph in a dream, "Fear not to receive Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Jesus (יֵשׁוּעַ), for he shall save his people from their sins. 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 Emanuel," etc. It is further stated, "And Joseph took unto him Mary his wife, and knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born son, and she called his name Jesus." In Luke 2:21, we find, "And when the eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child he was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb." From this it appears that Emanuel was a different individual from Jesus, for Jesus was in no instance called Emanuel—as to the name Jesus, it was given to him by mere chance, there were many other Jews named Jesus. See Ezra 2, 3 and 10, and the 2nd book of Chronicles 31. The Jews spell Jesus יֵשׁוּ, because the ע is omitted in the pronunciation of the Christians; but suppose the ע is to be retained, there is no inference deducible from that in favor of their faith, as Matthew tried to establish for the Christians, to apply the name of Jesus also to the son of Sirach, who wrote a book called Ecclesiasticus.
Our disputant may ask, Of whom did Isaiah prophesy in chapter 9:6 (9:7 in the English bible), when he said, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: on his shoulders shall be the government: and they shall call him Wonderful, Counselor, Almighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of [his] government and peace there shall be no end [without end, Hebrew] upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever"?
We give the following reply: Those passages refer to Hezekiah, King of Judah, during whose government Israel experienced, through a divine intercession, a signal deliverance from Sennacherib, King of Assyria, who had raised a siege against Jerusalem with an army of a hundred and eighty thousand valiant men. That this great miracle, namely, the fall of the camp of Sennacherib, referred to in the verses under consideration, was occasioned from the regard entertained by the Almighty for "the virtue of the child born unto us," and which, at the time of the prophecy, was already "given unto us." For when Ahaz ascended the throne, Hezekiah had already attained his ninth year. The truth of this exposition is borne out by the verses antecedent and subjoined to the passage "for a child has been born unto us." The latter word of the 6th verse of the 9th chapter of Isaiah must be rendered thus: "And he who is Wonderful, a Counselor and Omnipotent God; a Father of Eternity, he called his (the child’s) name Prince of Peace." The child born unto Ahaz is entitled the Prince of Peace because of the peace granted to Israel in the days of Hezekiah.
The preceding epithets are applied to the Almighty as indications of marvelous occurrences accompanying the life of Hezekiah, "God showed Himself Wonderful," causing for his (Hezekiah’s) sake, the shade of the sundial to recede; as "Counselor," the Lord established his own designs, and frustrated those of Sennacherib; as "the Omnipotent God," He evinced His divine attribute by suddenly destroying the immense army of the invading king; as "Father of Eternity," and Ruler of time, who, according to His pleasure, adds to and diminishes from the life of mortals, He manifested His power by prolonging the life of Hezekiah for a period of fifteen years.
The opponent may object to the above translation, by pleading, that he finds in his version of Isaiah the verb (וַיִּקָּרֵא) in the passive, viz.: "and his name was called, and not, as we are supposed to read, וַיִּקָּרֵא taking the verb in the active form (he called his name), so that the epithets which follow apply to the child, whose name the Almighty called "Wonderful," etc.
We know well that Jerome has made a practice of accommodating Scripture to the notions of his own creed; and has endeavored to establish an authority for his belief in the Divinity of Jesus. All endeavors, however, have failed. Even after adopting the reading of Jerome, we should be entitled to assign the above epithets to Hezekiah, since we have already proved that the nature of the holy language allows application of the name of the Almighty to human beings, and even to inanimate objects, inclusively. To give to Jesus the above appellations is altogether incompatible with his own history. How can he claim the names "Wonderful" and "Counsellor," when it is remembered, that one of his disciples frustrated his designs, and betrayed him to his enemies? How can he merit the title, "Powerful" or "Omnipotent God," who suffered an unnatural death? How can he be the "Father of Eternity," who did not attain even half of the natural period of human life? How can he be distinguished as the "Prince of Peace" whereas, no peace existed in his days: and as he himself asserted, by saying, "I am not come to bring peace into the earth, but the sword." The Christians avail themselves of the passage, "to the increase of government, and peace without end," to oppose us with the following question: — "If the intention of the prophet had been to prophesy an earthly kingdom, how could he say that his (the king’s) government would be without end?" We reply to this, that the expression, "without end," (קץ אין) is a mere figure of speech. We find, similarly, in Isaiah 2:7, "And his land was full of silver and gold, and there was no end to his treasures; and his land was full of horses, and there was no end to his chariots."
Thus we find, also, in Ecclesiastes 4:8, "There is One, and no second, and he has neither son nor brother; and there is no end to all his troubles." At the end of the above prophecy, Isaiah says, chapter 9:6, "On the throne of David, and over his kingdom." This passage is a clear refutation of the Christian doctrine of the Messiah, for Jesus never sat on the throne of David, and never ruled over Israel. Should they interpret the throne of David in a spiritual sense, we must declare that the throne of David never meant anything but in relation to terrestrial government. David sat on a real throne, and his kingdom was a positive reality. Scripture, therefore, treats of it here in that sense only, and does not allude to any visionary kingdom. The expression, to establish it, and support it, "in judgment and righteousness, now and for evermore," shows that his dominion—that is, the dynasty of David—will never perish. And though an interruption has occurred during the time of the captivity, the government, nevertheless, will in the days of the Messiah, return to the scion of David. See Ezekiel 37:25, "And they shall live in it, and their children, and their children’s children, to eternity, and my servant David shall be prince over them for ever." This whole passage refers to the Messiah, as will be shown hereafter. Our opponents may remark, "How can the idea of eternity be understood from the words ‘even for evermore,’ if the government of the House of David ceased from the time of the captivity?" Our answer to this argument is, that an intermediate cessation destroys not the nature of the perpetual duration; for we find that the commandment of circumcision, was enjoined on the posterity of Abraham, as an everlasting covenant, (see Genesis 17:7), "And my covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant;" and, nevertheless, the ceremonial was, from sanitary motives, discontinued during the whole period of the journey through the desert. When, however, the tribes had entered the Land of Promise, the practice of that covenant was resumed, and will remain in force, even in the days of the Messiah, as the Prophets have declared to us. See Isaiah 52:1, "Awake, awake! Put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thee the garments of thy glory, O Jerusalem, thou holy city, for there shall never more enter into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean." The prophet Ezekiel likewise says (chapter 44:9), "Thus saith the Lord God, Any son of an alien, of an uncircumcised heart and of uncircumcised flesh, shall not enter into my sanctuary." Another instance we find in the covenant which the Almighty made with Phineas to grant the high priesthood to him and his posterity for ever; a long suspension occurred among his posterity, for we learn that Eli, Abimelech, and Abiathar officiated as high priests, until King Solomon ascended the throne; nevertheless that dignity reverted to the rightful party, viz., the descendants of Phineas (see 1 Kings 2:26); where it is related that Solomon deposed Abiathar, and placed Zadok in his office. The same is related in 1 Chronicles 29:22, "And Zadok they anointed to be priest" because he was of the lineage of Phineas; and though another interruption in the dignity of priesthood took place during the time of the captivity, it will be restored at the coming of the Messiah; and the words in Numbers 25:13, will be realized, "And it shall belong to him and to his seed after him as an everlasting priesthood." Ezekiel informs us on this point by telling us (chapter 44:15), "And the priests, the Levites, the children of Zadok, who observed the observances of my sanctuary, while the children of Israel strayed from me, they shall come nigh unto me." This prophecy is connected with the Advent of the Messiah, as will be explained in its proper place. We have now given a full refutation to mistaken assertions of our opponents, and having founded our arguments on prophecy, they can only be opposed by opponents of truth itself.
Is Muhammad in the Torah? (Song of Songs 5:16)
Many Muslims claim that Muhammad is alluded in the Torah/Taurat (תורה, توراة) in Song of Songs 5:16
Here is the reason:
Al A'raf 7:157"Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in the Taurat and the Injil..."
Al Saff 61:6"...Jesus, the son of Mary said: 'O children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Taurat (which came) before me and giving glad tidings of an apostle to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad'
Muslims' desire to find any prophecy which will give credence to Muhammad is understandable, for without it Muhammad has no outside evidence to authenticate his prophethood. But there are some problems here, tho.
First, King Solomon's Song of Songs is not part of the Torah. The Torah consists of only the 5 books of Moses, so this verse wouldn't help at all to satisfy this demand of the Qur'an even if it were to speak about Muhammad.
But let's assume it did.
טז חִכּוֹ, מַמְתַקִּים, וְכֻלּוֹ, מַחֲמַדִּים; זֶה דוֹדִי וְזֶה רֵעִי, בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם
Song of Solomon is a poetic love story between the Beloved and her Lover. It is a piece that explores the beauty of a marriage relationship between a king and his wife.
Muslims believe that the adjectival clause "altogether lovely" can be changed to a proper noun, "Muhammad." The text, they state, should then read, when translated into English:
This rendering, however, begs a number of difficult questions according to the context of the entire book.
So, can ma7mad signify Muhammad? Wise men allow that when one verse is in doubt it is justified to explain one passage of the Bible by another. The word ma7mad appears another twelve times in the Torah. Since Muslims are so intent on finding the Arabic name of Muhammad in the Hebrew word ma7mad, it is important that they remain consistent. Therefore, here are verses where the same letters appear:
If this mutilation of Scripture seems to you ridiculous, it is meant to be as it shows the quality of the theory behind such an idea. There are nine other references which employ "ma7mad". See for yourself whether Muhammad would fit. They are: 2 Chronicles 36:19, Isaiah 64:11, Lamentations 1:10, Lamentations 2:4, Ezekiel 24:16, Ezekiel 24:25, Hosea 9:6, Hosea 9:16 and Joel 3:5.
When taken to its logical conclusion it makes a mockery of Hebrew grammar. Why should an adjectival clause be translated a proper noun? Ma7mad already has a proper noun counterpart, '7emdan' (or 'Hemdan', the eldest son of Dishon of Anah the Horite). If ma7mad should have been written as a proper noun the author would have written 7emdan.
Here is the reason:
Al A'raf 7:157"Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in the Taurat and the Injil..."
Al Saff 61:6"...Jesus, the son of Mary said: 'O children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Taurat (which came) before me and giving glad tidings of an apostle to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad'
Muslims' desire to find any prophecy which will give credence to Muhammad is understandable, for without it Muhammad has no outside evidence to authenticate his prophethood. But there are some problems here, tho.
First, King Solomon's Song of Songs is not part of the Torah. The Torah consists of only the 5 books of Moses, so this verse wouldn't help at all to satisfy this demand of the Qur'an even if it were to speak about Muhammad.
But let's assume it did.
טז חִכּוֹ, מַמְתַקִּים, וְכֻלּוֹ, מַחֲמַדִּים; זֶה דוֹדִי וְזֶה רֵעִי, בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם
- Song of Solomon 5:16: "His mouth is sweetness itself; he is
altogether lovely. This is my lover, this my friend, O
daughters of Jerusalem."
Song of Solomon is a poetic love story between the Beloved and her Lover. It is a piece that explores the beauty of a marriage relationship between a king and his wife.
Muslims believe that the adjectival clause "altogether lovely" can be changed to a proper noun, "Muhammad." The text, they state, should then read, when translated into English:
- "His mouth is sweetness itself; he is Muhammad. This is
my lover, this my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."
This rendering, however, begs a number of difficult questions according to the context of the entire book.
- Who are the daughters of Jerusalem? Did Muhammad ever court one of his many
wives in Jerusalem?
- If this is Muhammad, which of his wives is speaking? Was Muhammad ever
married to a dark woman he wooed from Lebanon?
- Did Muhammad ever claim kingship?
So, can ma7mad signify Muhammad? Wise men allow that when one verse is in doubt it is justified to explain one passage of the Bible by another. The word ma7mad appears another twelve times in the Torah. Since Muslims are so intent on finding the Arabic name of Muhammad in the Hebrew word ma7mad, it is important that they remain consistent. Therefore, here are verses where the same letters appear:
- 1 Kings 20:6
"Yet I will send my servants to thee tomorrow about this time, and they shall search thy house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, [that] whatever is Muhammad in thy eyes, they shall take [it] in their hand, and carry [it] away."
- Lamentations 1:11
"All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given their Muhammad things for food to relieve the soul: see, O LORD, and consider; for I am become vile."
- Ezekiel 24:21
"Speak to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellence of your strength, the Muhammad of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword."
If this mutilation of Scripture seems to you ridiculous, it is meant to be as it shows the quality of the theory behind such an idea. There are nine other references which employ "ma7mad". See for yourself whether Muhammad would fit. They are: 2 Chronicles 36:19, Isaiah 64:11, Lamentations 1:10, Lamentations 2:4, Ezekiel 24:16, Ezekiel 24:25, Hosea 9:6, Hosea 9:16 and Joel 3:5.
When taken to its logical conclusion it makes a mockery of Hebrew grammar. Why should an adjectival clause be translated a proper noun? Ma7mad already has a proper noun counterpart, '7emdan' (or 'Hemdan', the eldest son of Dishon of Anah the Horite). If ma7mad should have been written as a proper noun the author would have written 7emdan.
sábado, 26 de novembro de 2011
The Hebrew Bible
Hear, O Israel! - as broadcast by Israel's national radio (audio)
Reading of the first chapter of the book of Genesis - as broadcasted by Israel's national radio (audio)
The Pentateuch (audio)
The Book of Psalms (audio)
Tiqun haklali (Psalms) (audio)
Song of Songs (audio)
Ethics of the Fathers (audio)
Is Muhammad in the Torah? (Song of Songs 5:16)
Is Muhammad in the Torah? II
Isaiah’s prophecy of the "virgin birth" (Isaiah 7:14)
Why Jews do not believe that Jesus was Messiah?
Reading of the first chapter of the book of Genesis - as broadcasted by Israel's national radio (audio)
The Pentateuch (audio)
The Book of Psalms (audio)
Tiqun haklali (Psalms) (audio)
Song of Songs (audio)
Ethics of the Fathers (audio)
Is Muhammad in the Torah? (Song of Songs 5:16)
Is Muhammad in the Torah? II
Isaiah’s prophecy of the "virgin birth" (Isaiah 7:14)
Why Jews do not believe that Jesus was Messiah?
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
