The Temporal Horizon of the Immanuel Oracle

[Jason Hare]

Regarding the shift between singular and plural, have you not read the following? This passage is read by religious Jews three times a day as one of the three paragraphs of the Shema, the central part of the Jewish prayer service. It is taken from Deuteronomy 11:13–20.

¹³ וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁמֹ֤עַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־מִצְוֺתַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָֽנֹכִ֛י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם הַיּ֑וֹם לְאַֽהֲבָ֞ה אֶת־יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם֙ וּלְעָבְד֔וֹ בְּכָל־לְבַבְכֶ֖ם וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁכֶֽם׃ ¹⁴ וְנָֽתַתִּ֧י מְטַֽר־אַרְצְכֶ֛ם בְּעִתּ֖וֹ יוֹרֶ֣ה וּמַלְק֑וֹשׁ וְאָֽסַפְתָּ֣ דְגָנֶ֔ךָ וְתִֽירֹשְׁךָ֖ וְיִצְהָרֶֽךָ׃ ¹⁵ וְנָֽתַתִּ֛י עֵ֥שֶׂב בְּשָֽׂדְךָ֖ לִבְהֶמְתֶּ֑ךָ וְאָֽכַלְתָּ֖ וְשָׂבָֽעְתָּ׃ ¹⁶ הִשָּֽׁמְר֣וּ לָכֶ֔ם פֶּ֥ן יִפְתֶּ֖ה לְבַבְכֶ֑ם וְסַרְתֶּ֗ם וַֽעֲבַדְתֶּם֙ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים וְהִשְׁתַּֽחֲוִיתֶ֖ם לָהֶֽם׃ ¹⁷ וְחָרָ֨ה אַף־יְהוָ֜ה בָּכֶ֗ם וְעָצַ֤ר אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֨יִם֙ וְלֹֽא־יִהְיֶ֣ה מָטָ֔ר וְהָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה לֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן אֶת־יְבוּלָ֑הּ וַֽאֲבַדְתֶּ֣ם מְהֵרָ֗ה מֵעַל֙ הָאָ֣רֶץ הַטֹּבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה נֹתֵ֥ן לָכֶֽם׃ ¹⁸ וְשַׂמְתֶּם֙ אֶת־דְּבָרַ֣י אֵ֔לֶּה עַל־לְבַבְכֶ֖ם וְעַֽל־נַפְשְׁכֶ֑ם וּקְשַׁרְתֶּ֨ם אֹתָ֤ם לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יֶדְכֶ֔ם וְהָי֥וּ לְטֽוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵֽינֵיכֶֽם׃ ¹⁹ וְלִמַּדְתֶּ֥ם אֹתָ֛ם אֶת־בְּנֵיכֶ֖ם לְדַבֵּ֣ר בָּ֑ם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤ בְּבֵיתֶ֨ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּֽבְשָׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ׃ ²⁰ וּכְתַבְתָּ֛ם עַל־מְזוּז֥וֹת בֵּיתֶ֖ךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶֽיךָ׃

Do you see the switch back-and-forth between plural (vv. 13, 16–19a) and singular (vv. 14–15, 19b–20)? Would you take this to mean that it’s speaking to different people? For some reason, this happens in Hebrew, and we shouldn’t make an interpretation of a passage dependent on whether the text is using singular or plural when an obvious audience in presented in the text. In the text in question, the prophet is addressing ʾĀḥāz and his court, whether he speaks in the singular (as if to the king himself) or in the plural (as to the whole of his house).

[Jason Hare]

Something that you’d need to tackle to establish your point (which hasn’t been well argued here) is why Isaiah used הָרָה hārâ (the adjective that means “pregnant”) rather than either הָֽרְתָה hārəṯâ (an assumed “prophetic perfect,” if there is such a thing) or תַּהֲרֶה tahăreh (an imperfect for the future). He says, “the ʿalmâ is pregnant” rather than “will conceive.” I don’t think your case is as solid as you think on the basis of Hebrew grammar. I’m not saying that you should not believe whatever it is that you believe, but the Hebrew doesn’t support these things per se—and the Hebrew language is the only thing that we should be worried about interpreting here. I’m really not seeking to contradict your personal beliefs. I’m only responding to things that you brought up with regard to the language. You’re free to hold whatever beliefs you have.

[Kenneth Greifer]

I have noticed that people will say that the verb in the "present tense" can be about the future too, so your argument about "is pregnant" in Isaiah 7:14 won't work with them.

[Jason Hare]

I have noticed that people will say that the verb in the "present tense" can be about the future too, so your argument about "is pregnant" in Isaiah 7:14 won't work with them.

It’s not a verb. It’s an adjective (הָרָה hārâ “pregnant”). It forms a nominal clause, הָֽעַלְמָה הָרָה hāʿalmâ hārâ “the ʿalmâ [is] pregnant.” There must certainly be a distinction to be maintained if the prophet chose to use an adjective rather than a verbal form.

[Jason Hare]

I have noticed that people will say that the verb in the "present tense" can be about the future too, so your argument about "is pregnant" in Isaiah 7:14 won't work with them.

It’s certainly true that the participle is used with great frequency after הִנֵּה hinnēh “behold” to indicate something that’s going to happen in the future. Notice that there is no “present tense” form in biblical Hebrew. The participle (what came later to be called זְמַן הוֹוֶה “present tense” or זְמַן בֵּינוֹנִי “intermediate tense” [that is, between the past and future]) doesn’t bear tense at all. It’s better thought of as a sort of aorist, taking its tense from the context. I’d require more examples of nominal clauses with הִנֵּה that show a future sense in order to be convinced that the same is true when an adjective is in use as when a participle appears. Do you know of any?

I’ve posted over on Nerdy Biblical Languages Majors if someone might provide me with a list of relevant verses. Accordance should be able to search this pretty easily. I could construct a syntax search using Logos if I were at home. I’d like to see what we’re looking at here rather than stabbing in the dark (which is what I kinda feel like I’m doing on that specific question). I cannot think of other verses that have this structure, but I’m sure there must be.

[Kenneth Greifer]

I thought the word "is pregnant" in Isaiah 7:14 could be an adjective or a participle (what I call present tense). Maybe it makes a difference if you just look at the letters and ignore the vowels.

[Jason Hare]

I thought the word "is pregnant" in Isaiah 7:14 could be an adjective or a participle (what I call present tense). Maybe it makes a difference if you just look at the letters and ignore the vowels.

I speak from the perspective of the modern language, but the participle is used for the substantive concept of “parent(s)” (הוֹרֶה and הוֹרִים). I don’t think this verb appears as a participle anywhere in the biblical language. Although possible (הֹרָה), it doesn’t seem natural. Maybe someone has a different opinion?

[Jason Hare]

Hopefully I’ll have an answer to the question about occurrences and data to share later on today. I’m waiting either to hear back from people on NBLM or to finish my shift and get home, where I’ll be able to search on Logos. Whatever comes first, I’ll try to get back on that issue ASAP.

[Kenneth Greifer]

I was looking at commentaries on netbible and biblehub and they say it could be an adjective or a participle and could be about the present or future.

[S_Walch]

Evidently the LXX translation has provided much in the way of interpreting this passage:

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον, ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ

All the verbs in this verse (bolded) are future tense. The underlined words translate הָרָה, having to use three Greek words just for the one Hebrew word (some manuscripts (Vaticanus) replace ἕξει "shall have" with λήμψεται "shall receive"; different word, but same tense). The translator in this case has understood the entire thing as a future occurrence, though whether this is immediately following the prophecy or for a later date we wouldn't be able to determine. Nevertheless, the LXX translation is likely what has affected later interpretations of this passage.

Saying that, the Dead Sea Scrolls sect was quiet adept at arguing older prophecies as applying to their own situation (see the Pesher/commentary on Habakkuk for instance), so having both a separate past and future prophetic "fulfilment" is within the bounds of theological thinking, regardless if one wants to support either an at-the-time fulfilment, or a future one as well.