An Uncertain Gospel

Recently, I entertained myself with an interview of Sir Anthony Hopkins on the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS. You may read the transcript here. Hopkins has a new movie that he is promoting that, by my view of the trailers, appears to be a new epistemic twist to The Exorcist. It's not the movie I am interested in, but the comments of Hopkins on the meaning and perceived enemy portrayed in the film. Smiley asked if certainty is the enemy. "Certainty is the enemy of mankind," responded Hopkins in his distinguished English accent. Hopkins quoted Peter Berger (and for Hopkins' reference, is an American philosopher of Austrian descent) as suggesting that certainty about reality leads to Nazism and the Inquisition, whereas doubting reality makes one wise and stronger. Hopkins continues, "does anyone know of anything? Nobody, not one single human being has an answer. None of us know. Everything is a mystery."

Here in lies an epistemic problem. According to Hopkins, not one person can be sure about anything existing. Thus, for one to see and tree and the image of a tree corresponds in that person's mind as the reality of a tree, Hopkins suggests to doubt that trees exist and he will be the wiser and stronger. This is absurdity. Yet, in this post-modern age, this nonsense passes as intellectual. Even Hopkins suggested that this conversation was being very intellectual. No, Sir Hopkins, it is an absurdity. You may wish to make-believe that brick walls exist, but running into them will still hurt. Truth is, reality is true whether we agree or even wish it not to exist. So, you may ask, why all this diatribe on Hopkins. He's an aged actor staging as a philosopher. No one really believes this, do they? Who lives as Hopkins says "I live in doubt all the time....I think doubt is a very healthy way to live." Now to my point.

You may have heard recently that Rob Bell broke with orthodox Christian teaching by suggesting that the doctrine of hell is keeping people from loving Jesus, and thus needs to be removed. I will point the reader to a well written article by Dr. Al Mohler here. I will not rehash arguments against Bell; furthermore, I would suggest that Rob Bell was never orthodox.To make this clear to my congregation, Rob Bell is to be avoided. My beef is not merely with Bell, but with this entire postmodern junk gospel known as Emerging Church Movement. Brian McLaren sought to defend Bell with his article "Will Loves Wins Win?" In his article, McLaren muddies the water with more postmodern epistemology, contending that a clear idea of what the gospel says cannot be attained because of communication barriers between the speaker and reader as well as cultural time barriers. In other words, the true meaning of the gospel is uncertain and to be remained in doubt, especially considering the varying versions of Christianity.

Between Rob Bell's questioning (resembling that of the serpent "has God indeed said...") and McLaren's doubting communication epistemology, this repackaged postmodern doubt of any certainty is nothing but worldly philosophy clouting God's creation as reality and His communication skills in His Word. If the Bible cannot be trusted and meaning attained by the reader with any degree of certainty, then God has a stuttering problem. If God cannot utilize language, which He created, with any effective degree that readers can obtain not just meaning, but truth of the reality in which God is attempting to reveal, then God cannot be trusted with anything. Furthermore, Rob Bell attempted to defend himself on CNN recently. Bell's fans sum up my argument quite well: "He (Rob Bell) leaves it open-ended. He lets you think and draw your own conclusions for yourself instead of spoon-feeding what he grew up hearing or what he was taught in seminary." In other words, Rob Bell doubts all truth claims of the Scripture and allows the audience to draw their own conclusions of truth from the Bible. This garbage epistemology is called reader-response criticism. This claims that truth is not in what was said, but is entirely reliant on the hearer to derive whether it corresponds to reality or not. For instance, back to the tree and brick wall illustrations. A tree is in front of 3 people. One sees a tree, another a lollipop, and again another sees a kind old woman. The two that observe a lollipop and a kind, old woman in Bell's (and postmodern) perception is equally true and valid to the one viewing the tree as a tree. The problem arises when the second licks the tree and finds that it does not taste like a lollipop, and the third has a conversation and a hug with the tree and does not find it as warm as a kind, old woman. These do not correspond to reality. Catching on? Consider 3 persons in front of a brick wall. One sees a brick wall, another has been convinced that it is a soft, feather mattress. And again another observes a Philly cheese steak. Once the second runs and hits the wall and finds it not as soft as a feather mattress, something is wrong with the person perceiving and not the truth of the wall. The brick wall is a brick wall, regardless of the one viewing. Derive your own comical conclusions with a Philly cheese steak.

Okay, now for a little bit more of a layman's understanding for clarity as a conclusion. Suggesting that the Bible, or more specifically the gospel, is open to interpretation by each hearer and not true in its own claims is as equally as absurd as seeing a brick wall as a soft, feather mattress and living life accordingly. To suggest that hell does not exist because it is inconsistent with Rob Bell's perception of a benevolent God (this requires the Bible to define "good" and "just") even though the Bible teaches that hell does indeed exist is living in fantasy land. The gospel, in the postmodern view, is uncertain just like Hopkins' view of all reality. It is an absurd way to live. More importantly, it is an absurd way to pretend to be Christian.

The Virgin Will Be With Child – Part 1

Dr. Mohler’s recent re-post of his article Must We Believe the Virgin Birth? had me thinking on this issue. Over the centuries post-Enlightenment, thinkers have used the doctrine of the virgin birth from evidence of mythologized Christianity to proof of Christ’s divinity. Mohler defended the necessity of the doctrine of the virgin birth to the Christian faith, and I will refer the Christian reader questioning if they must hold to this doctrine to his article. In this essay, I will map out the prophecy, fulfillment of, and importance of this doctrine from a biblical standpoint. An important question that demands an answer is does the Bible truly prophesy that the Messiah will be born of a virgin? The answer to this question is of ultimate value for or against the truth claims of Jesus of Nazareth.

Isaiah 7:14 in the English Standard Version reads: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” A few things to deliberate here: is this passage speaking of something near or far future from Isaiah, is this son literal or figurative, and is the word for “virgin” translated appropriately? In this first part of the series, we will discuss the translation challenges for the word "virgin" followed by the other two in upcoming articles. This will be a four-part series that will likely take a few months to gather. Patience please!

Let us first deal with the word translated “virgin.” This is the most controversial aspect of Isaiah 7:14; thus, needs to be addressed first. The word in Hebrew is הָעַלְמָה (ha-almah). The word is singular prefixed with ה (ha), correctly translated “the”.  The word “the” is important theologically because of the prophecy as a whole. The promised child is thus singular, and a specific person (or event if thinking allegorically, which I contend is incorrect) is referenced here. In other words, this is not “a virgin will soon be pregnant,” but rather “THE virgin will be pregnant.” This makes the beloved NASB translation incorrect.

Now, what about almah, is this translated to be “virgin” correctly? The Tanakh (Jewish Scripture) translates the word as "young woman." The word itself is utilized in other areas of the Old Testament as a young woman of marriageable age. The age group is from puberty to consummation. Rebekah is referenced in Genesis 24:43. The word for “virgin” is quite fitting in this context, especially considering verse 16, suggesting this almah no man had known (a “virgin” or בְּתוּלָה, betulah). This is a fitting woman for Isaac to marry, a girl of marrying age that is a virgin. The author appears to use the words almah and betulah interchangeably. Now, Jewish scholars might suggest that the usage of almah in 43 is to avoid repetition from betulah in 16. This is a point I read from around the web, and I must sit back and scratch my head wondering how this is supposed to be linguistic evidence that almah does not mean “virgin.” If the author was avoiding redundancy, then the author presumes the original word betulah in almah. In other words, in so far as this passage goes, the usage of the two words is seen as synonymous, not in contradiction. Therefore, almah can mean “virgin” if the context calls for it.

Another usage of the word almah is found in Exodus 2:8. The Pharaoh’s daughter finds the baby Moses in the river, and Miriam asks if she should find a Hebrew to nurse the child. The Pharaoh’s daughter tells her to go, then the Scripture reads “And the maiden (הָעַלְמָה) went and called the child’s mother.” Miriam (likely referenced here as the maiden) apparently was a young woman not yet married. In this usage of almah, the woman referenced here is in the age group as described, yet the context does not give information regarding sexual purity. I provide this information to show that the meaning of almah is a woman of the age group post puberty yet before marriage. Thus, the context of the passage enlightens the reader to the full definition of the word. Isolated, almah simply means young woman of marrying age. Yet, the context of the use of the word may mean “virgin” as argued above. However, the context of this passage also does not suggest Miriam was not a virgin. A thought to consider. In fact, as Martin Luther pointed out, in every case of the Old Testament, the use of almah never refers to a married woman or a sexually impure woman.

Let us return to the passage at hand. Isaiah’s usage of almah is to be correctly translated as “virgin.” First, the use of the word with הָרָה (harah), meaning “soon to be pregnant.” Why would this information be given if this was just some young woman of marrying age? A sign from God ushered in with the word הִנֵּה (hinnah), translated “behold”, shows the reader that something extraordinary is about to occur. A young woman that is about to be pregnant could mean anyone, or shall I say THE young woman. A young woman that is about to be pregnant is not a sign, but a common occurrence. A virgin about to be pregnant then bearing a son is a sign, a miraculous sign. Thus, the context of almah in Isaiah 7:14 is referring to the virgin getting pregnant and having a son as a sign, not simply a young woman giving birth which would be too insignificant to be a sign. Second, the word almah in the Greek Septuagint, that is the Greek translation of the Old Testament prior to Jesus, is translated to παρθενος, which only means “virgin.” Lastly, Matthew, a Levite, uses παρθενος in reference to Isaiah. Matthew was a Hebrew speaker, and would know that mistranslating this word to the Greek would be destructive to the Hebrew readers, especially if they are from the diaspora. The Jews of the diaspora would immediately see the abuse of the language from Isaiah 7:14 and reject Matthew’s writings outright. However, this did not occur, and Matthew quoted this passage from Hebrew to Greek as he saw appropriate as a Hebrew speaker. 

Given the context as well as other uses of the word, ha-almah is appropriately translated as “the virgin.” Next time, I will consider whether or not Isaiah 7:14 is a near or far future prophecy from Isaiah’s time.