To view in English, please scroll down to the bottom.
「因此，主自己要給你們一個兆頭，必有童女懷孕生子，給他起名叫以馬內利。」（以賽亞書7:14）
以賽亞書是在耶穌誕生700多年前寫的，
然而，數千年來，基督徒一直認為這段經文是一個強而有力的預言，因為它證明了新約馬太福音1:23的記載確實應驗了以賽亞書的預言：「必有童女懷孕生子，人要稱他名為以馬內利」（意思是「神與我們同在」）。透過道成肉身的耶穌，我們便可以與神和好，罪得赦免，並獲永生。
耶穌母親瑪利亞的童貞性在基督教信仰中極為重要。她的童貞不僅代表了她的純潔與身為「神之母」的特殊角色，更進一步肯定了耶穌的神性、無罪性，及彌賽亞的身份，也因此成為基督教信仰的核心基石。
根據新約聖經馬太福音1:18，耶穌的母親不是透過與丈夫的性關係懷孕，而是由聖靈受孕的：
「耶穌基督降生的事記在下面：他母親馬利亞已經許配了約瑟，還沒有迎娶，馬利亞就從聖靈懷了孕。」
當我們想依據第三者的說法來證明自己的觀點時，首先需要確立來源的真實性。同樣的道理，我們需要先驗證馬太福音1:18的引用來源是否符合以賽亞書7:14的上下文，才能確立此預言之有效性。由於「童貞女」這個詞引起了最多的爭議，我們今天就專注於此話題。
雖然在基督教聖經舊約裡，以賽亞書7:14這個詞被翻譯為「童女」，但在希伯來聖經（舊約）的原文其實是「עַלְמָה」（發音為“alma”）：
“לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת, הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ
希伯來文 “alma” 一詞一般是指適婚年齡的年輕女子，並不特指童貞。換句話說，這位年輕女子可能是童貞女，也可能不是。重點是她是一個年輕女子，跟她是否童貞毫無相關。如果真的要用更精確的希伯來語來字眼表達「童貞女」，應該是「בְּתוּלָה」（betulah）。這詞則是專指一個從未有過性行為的女子。因此，以賽亞書7:14原文更準確翻譯應該是：
「因此，主自己要給你們一個兆頭：必有年輕女子（alma）懷孕生子，給他起名叫以馬內利。」
「年輕女子」和「童貞女」之間的差異似乎是重要到不能忽視的地步，難怪這麼世紀以來，這話題一直是猶太和基督教學者之間的爭論焦點。
基本上，猶太和希伯來學者對以賽亞書7:14的理解有如下兩點：
1. 因為完全沒有新約的背景，猶太教認為這節經文中的 “alma” 是指一個已經懷孕或即將懷孕的年輕女子，這其中並沒有任何提及或暗示關於童貞女奇蹟受孕的這件事。
2. 根據以賽亞書的原文與上下文分析，這節經文顯示出公元前734年以色列正處於重大政治動盪之中。猶太人認為這節經文是針對對猶大王亞哈斯的預言（以賽亞書7:1-17）。當時亞哈斯王正面臨來自兩位聯盟國王的巨大威脅：亞蘭（敘利亞）的利汛王和以色列（北國）的比加王，他們想施壓亞哈斯王加入他們聯盟的陣隊，一起對抗不斷擴張的亞述帝國。為此，先知以賽亞找上亞哈斯王的門來，向他保證這個聯盟即將失敗，不要花精神去懼怕這兩位國王。先知還給亞哈斯王一個從神那裡來的兆頭，他說：一位年輕女子（alma）將懷孕，並生下一個名叫以馬內利的兒子，意思是「神與我們同在」。這個兆頭表明，孩子在長到能分辨善惡之前，那兩位威脅猶大的國王的國土將會被毀滅。
至於這個名叫以馬內利的孩子的母親是誰，猶太學者之間對此有不同的見解。有些人認為這個孩子可能是指亞哈斯王的兒子，有些人推測是先知以賽亞的孩子，甚至有人認為這個以馬內利只是一個純屬象徵性或寓意性的人物，而非特定的歷史人物。無論如何，這個孩子的誕生象徵著威脅猶大王的兩個王國即將倒台，這跟救世主彌賽亞沒有任何關聯。
那麼，舊約中是否有專門使用「童貞女」（בְּתוּלָה或betulah）這個字眼的經文呢？其實有非常多，以下只指出一些例子：
1. 創世記24:16：「那女子容貌極其俊美，還是處女（betulah），也未曾有人親近她。」這裡描寫的是利百加，強調了她純潔和未婚的童貞狀態。
2. 利未記21:13：「他要娶處女（betulah）為妻。」這裡是針對大祭司的指示，要求他們只能娶童貞女以保持儀式上的純潔。
3. 士師記21:12：「他們在基列雅比人中，遇見了四百個未嫁的處女（betulah），就帶到迦南地的示羅營裡。」這裡所描述的是以色利支派為便雅憫支派娶妻的故事。
4. 申命記22:23-24：「若有處女（betulah)，已經許配丈夫，有人在城裡遇見他，與他行淫男子在城裡遇見一個許配人的童貞女 (betulah)，與她行淫……」
這裡所指的是有關性關係的法律以及處女在結婚時的地位。
如果「年輕女子」(alma) 和「童貞女/處女」(betulah) 的定義差異如此之大，為什麼基督教會刻意選擇「錯誤的」翻譯版本呢？
一個比較可能的解釋方法為：在希伯來聖經 (Septuagint) 的希臘翻譯版裡（請參閱部落格 “七十士譯本”），以賽亞書7:14中的希伯來詞「עַלְמָה」(alma)，意為「年輕女子」，被翻譯為希臘語 “παρθένος” (parthenos)。在古希臘語中, παρθένος (parthenos) 主要意思是「童貞女」，指的是一個從未有過性行為的年輕女子。然而，它也可以更廣泛地用來指「少女」或「未婚的年輕女子」，暗示年輕和純潔，但不一定只強調生理上的處女狀態。例如在創世紀34:3中，示劍強姦了底拿之後，七十士譯本仍然使用同樣 “παρθένος” (parthenos) 這個字。很明顯，底拿被強姦之後仍是一位「少女」，只是他不再是「處女」了。由於在以賽亞書7:14中，「處女」這個翻譯選擇的模糊性，恰好與早期基督徒對馬太福音1:18稱瑪利亞為童貞女的解釋相吻相合。這個一致性進一步鞏固了基督教對於耶穌由聖靈受孕，應驗了預言的信念。由此，「童貞女」的翻譯選擇成為早期基督教經文的基礎，並延續至今。
總而言之，我們可以看到，僅僅因為一個詞語的語義彈性，竟然能對神學信仰產生如此重大的影響和分歧。對我而言，從這兩種不同版本的「童真女」中，我學到了幾個重要的功課：
1. 當我們堅持從一個預設的基督教角度來解讀每一節希伯來聖經（舊約）時，我們只能得到以基督教為中心的答案和結論。
2. 當基督徒宣稱聖經是無誤的（請參閱部落格文「聖經無誤」），此「無誤」的定義只停留在基督教的教義和其意識形態，而不是其他框架。因此，表面上的「客觀性」實際上具有內在的主觀性。
3. 如果基督徒真正相信新約是建立在舊約的基礎上，也相信它是其應驗和延續，那麼基督徒首先應該徹底學習希伯來聖經（舊約）的原文，而不是僅依賴希臘文的翻譯。用新約來解釋舊約，根本就是本末倒置。
4. 就如同任何歷史記載一樣，希伯來聖經是在特定的歷史、文化和宗教背景下寫成的。用新約的角度去解釋它，只會強化基督教單方的視角，這可能會與原本的猶太理解方式不一致。
5. 基督徒常覺得難以理解為何猶太人不接受耶穌為彌賽亞，於是他們竭盡全力，猛向猶太人傳福音（請參閱部落格「此鹿非比鹿」），還將猶太人貼上「頑固」的標籤（請參閱部落格「毒蛇的種類」），而不去認識到猶太人只不過在遵循希伯來聖經原文的教導。堅持將新約視為舊約預言的應驗，不僅造成了許多神學上的張力，也對猶太人造成了不公正的評判與誤解。
6. 基督教中有一個流行的信念，認為舊約早已被新約取代了。換句話說，神賜給猶太人的 “舊”約已經被通過耶穌基督成全的新約所取代，從而基督教取代了猶太教。這種神學概念被稱為「取代論」（請參閱部落格「 “舊
”約」）。相信「取代論」的人認為舊約是一本可有可無的書卷。我們大家都目睹了，經常在旅社房間裡都會放置一本基甸會印製的聖經，而通常只有新約（有時會附加詩篇和箴言）。不管基甸會為什麼選擇不印刷舊約，我們能推測的是，他們選擇了他們認為「較重要」的書卷。
結論
「童貞女之爭」無疑突顯了舊約與新約之間複雜的關係，以及需要在各自的歷史背景和宗教傳統下來理解這些經文的重要性。無論我們選擇「年輕女子」還是「童貞女」的詮釋，期望我們能保有開放的心態、持續地學習、並願意探索超越我們所被教導相信的觀點。我們應該勇於提問，並擁抱神賜予我們的好奇心之美。
Virgin
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign:The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel (Isaiah 7: 14).”
The book of Isaiah was written over 700 years before the birth of Jesus, however, for thousands of years, Christians have regarded this passage as a powerful prophecy that proves the fulfillment of Jesus's birth recorded on Matthew 1:23: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”). Through this incarnation where God became the human form of Jesus, we can then be reconciled to God, receive forgiveness of sins, and have everlasting life.
The virginity of Jesus’s mother, Mary, is crucial in Christian faith. Her virginity not only highlights her purity and unique role as the Mother of God, it is an affirmation of Jesus's divine nature, his sinlessness and his role as the Messiah. Hence, it represents the very foundational elements of Christian doctrine.
According to Matthew 1:18 in the New Testament, Jesus’s mother conceived him not through a sexual relationship with her husband, but was impregnated by the Holy Spirit:
“This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.”
It is essential that when we base on someone else’s claim to prove our point valid, we need to first establish and verify the validity of that original statement. Same thing applies to Matthew 1:18. We need to verify the contextual accuracy of Matthew’s quote lines up with Isaiah 7:14 before we can establish the claim of the prophecy being valid. Since the word “virgin” sparked the most debate, let’s focus on this word today.
While the word in Isaiah 7:14 is translated as “virgin” in Christians’ Old Testament Bible, the original word in Hebrew Bible (Old Testament ) is "עַלְמָה" (pronounced “alma”) :
“לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת, הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל.” The Hebrew word, “alma” generally means a “young woman” of marriageable age and does not specifically imply virginity. In other words, when referring to a young woman, she might be a virgin, she might not be. The point is that she is simply a young woman, whether she is a virgin or not is irrelevant. The more precise Hebrew word for virgin is "בְּתוּלָה" (betulah). In this case, it is specifically referring to a woman who had never had any sexual intercourse. Therefore, a more accurate translation of Isaiah 7:14 should have been:
“Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young woman (alma) is pregnant and will bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
The discrepancy between a “young woman” and a “virgin” seems to be too important to dismiss. No wonder it has been a point of contention between Jewish and Christian scholars for centuries.
There are two ways how Jewish and Hebrew scholars understand Isaiah 7:14 to be:
1. Without the context of the New Testament, they understand “alma” in this verse as referring to a young woman who is already pregnant or will soon be, without any implication of a miraculous virgin birth.
2. In its original context in Isaiah, the verse was set against the backdrop of a great political turmoil in Israel around 734 BCE.
Jews see this particular verse as a prophecy given to King Ahaz of Judah (Isaiah 7:1-17). King Ahaz was facing a significant threat from two allied kings: Rezin of Aram (Syria) and Pekah of Israel (the northern kingdom), who wanted to pressure Ahaz into joining their coalition against the expanding Assyrian empire. The prophet Isaiah approached Ahaz to assure him that the coalition would fail and that he need not fear these two kings. The prophet offered a sign from God: a young woman (alma) would conceive and bear a son named Immanuel, meaning “God with us.” This sign indicated that before the child grew old enough to discern right from wrong, the lands of the two threatening kings would be destroyed.
As to who the mother was of this child named Emmanuel, there are different interpretations among Jewish scholars.
Some believe the child could have been King Ahaz’s son, some speculated that it was the prophet Isaiah’s child. Many even view Emmanuel as a purely symbolic or allegorical figure rather than a specific historical person. Regardless, this child was to be born to symbolize the downfall of the two kings threatening Judah with no association of the upcoming Messiah.
So, are there verses in the Old Testament specifically use the word that means “virgin” (בְּתוּלָה or betulah)? Here are some examples, to name a few:
1. Genesis 24:16: “The young woman was very beautiful, a virgin (betulah); no man had ever slept with her.” Here, it describes Rebekah, emphasizing her purity and status as an unmarried virgin.
2. Leviticus 21:13: “He shall marry a woman in her virginity (betulah).” Here, it is the instruction directed to the High Priest, requiring him to marry only a virgin in order to maintain ritual purity.
3. Judges 21:12: “They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who were virgins (betulah), who had never slept with a man.” Here, the term is used to describe the status of young women brought to the tribe of Benjamin.
4. Deuteronomy 22:23-24: “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin (betulah) pledged to be married and he sleeps with her...”
Here, it deals with laws concerning sexual relations and the status of a virgin when they get married.
If “young woman” (alma) and “virgin” (betulah) are so different in definition, why would Christians choose the “wrong” translation? A possible explanation is as follow:
The Hebrew word “עַלְמָה” (alma), meaning “young woman,” in Isaiah 7:14 was translated as “παρθένος” (parthenos) in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible called “Septuagint” (please refer to my blog post “Septuagint”). In ancient Greek, the word “παρθένος” (parthenos) primarily means “virgin”, which refers to a young woman who has not had sexual relations. However, it can also be used more broadly to mean “maiden” or “unmarried young woman,” implying both youth and purity but not necessarily focusing solely on physical virginity. For example, in Genesis 34:3, after Dinah was raped by Shechem, the Septuagint translation still refers to her with παρθένος (parthenos). Clearly, after she was raped, she was still “a young woman”, however, she was no longer a “virgin”. The ambiguity of the translation choice of “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 aligned perfectly with early Christians’ interpretation of Matthew 1:18, where Mary is referred to as a virgin. This alignment further solidified Christians’ belief in the virgin birth, affirming Jesus’s divine conception as the fulfillment of prophecy. As a result, the translation choice of “virgin” became foundational to early Christian scriptures and has continued to be upheld to this day.
Overall, we can see how the linguistic flexibility on only one word can significantly influence on theological beliefs and cause division. For me, there are a few lessons learned from the discovery of these two different versions of virgin:
1. When we insist on viewing every single verse in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) through a pre-set Christian lens, we would only arrive at the Christian-centered answers and conclusions.
2. When Christians claim that the Bible is inerrant (please refer to my blog post “Biblical Inerrancy”), the definition of “inerrancy” is based on Christian doctrine and ideology, not by any other frameworks. Therefore, the ostensible “objectivity” is indeed inherently subjective.
3. If Christians truly believe that the New Testament is built upon the Old Testament, serving as its fulfillment and continuation, it seems only logical for Christians to study the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) thoroughly first with the original language before relying solely on Greek. Using the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament is like putting the cart before the horse.
4. Just like any historical records, the Hebrew Bible was written in a specific historical, cultural, and religious context. Applying New Testament interpretations can impose a later Christian perspective that may not align with the original Jewish understanding.
5. While Christians often find it difficult to understand why Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, they tend to focus on proselytizing Jews (please refer to my blog post “Not the Same Deer”), labeling them as stubborn (please refer to my blog post “Who Are Generations of Vipers?”, rather than recognizing that Jews are simply following the guidelines of the original text in the Hebrew Bible. Insisting on viewing the New Testament as a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy has not only created a lot of theological tension but also created a lot of unfair judgment and misunderstanding on Jewish people.
6. There is a popular trend of Christian teaching that teaches the Old Testament has been replaced by the New Testament. In other words, the “Old” Covenant given to the Jewish people has been replaced and fulfilled by the new covenant through Jesus Christ, thus Christianity supersedes Judaism. This theological concept is called “Supersessionism” (please refer to my blog post “The ‘Old’ Testament”). People who believe in supersessionism view the Old Testament as an “optional book”. We all witness the fact that the Bibles we commonly find in hotel rooms printed by the Gideons International are only the New Testament, sometimes with Psalms and Proverbs included. For whatever reason Gideons decided not to print the Old Testament, we can assume that they picked what they regarded as “more important”.
Conclusion
The “virgin debate” certainly highlights the complex relationship between the two testaments and the importance of understanding each within its own context and tradition. Whether we decide to go with “young woman” or “virgin,” it’s crucial to remain open-minded, stay informed, get educated, and be willing to explore perspectives beyond what we have been told to believe, be willing to question and embrace the beauty of curiosity that God has given us.
Comments