HOME

johndbrey@gmail.com

© 2015 John D. Brey.

Before she travailed, she brought forth;

טרם                  חיל               ילד        

Three Hebrew words account for the English version of the interpretation of the text. The English version of the text is based on a reading of the Hebrew consonants as they're pronounced according to the Masoretic Text. The statement in the Masoretic Text (remembering the words are reversed from the way they appear when connected to the left to right reading English-interlinear) looks like this:

 טֶ֥רֶם חִ֖יל יָלָ֑דָ

The diacritical marks beneath the letters determine how the words are pronounced. But these marks are not canonical; they're not a part of the original text. They're added in order to read the text a particular way. The addition of the marks determines to a major degree how the text will be read. The text is interpreted to say that a female personification of Zion doesn't "travail" before giving birth? The implied meaning of the word חיל "travail" is that this woman gives birth without having "birth pains." The very next verse says, "Before her pain חבלֹ came she was delivered of a man child."

"Who has heard such a thing? who has seen such things?" ---- Heard what? ---Seen what? ----A woman giving birth without pain? -----What possible connection is there between not having birth pains and the context of the passage. What relationship is there between a woman not having birth pains and the symbolism strewn throughout this passage, this book, this scripture?

"Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once"? ----These questions are directly related to the prior statement about who has heard or seen a woman give birth without "travail." ----What does the earth bringing forth in a day or a nation being born at once, have to do with a woman giving birth without "travail"?

"For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children."

Verses 7 and 8 implied the miraculous thing was bringing forth without "travail"? ---- Here it says. . . "as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children"? What’s going on?

In verse 7, the Masoretic Text places punctuation on the word חיל that makes it read "travail" when the same word חיל is interpreted in verse 8 to mean "made," as in, "Shall the earth be made חיל to bring forth in one day"? In his etymological dictionary, Rabbi Samson Hirsch says that the three consonants of the word חיל (chet-yod-lamed) mean to "enable" or to "concentrate power," the primary meaning being to "enable," or "to be made able." Proverbs 31:3 uses the word to speak of a man’s ability to enable a woman sexually.

Only by adding punctuation to the three consonants of the word חיל is it made to read as something other than to be "made able," or "enabled." Only the addition of the punctuation to the text changes the meaning of the word from "made able," to "travail." Remove the punctuation from חיל in verse 7 and the passage becomes clear:

Before she was made able [before it was even possible], she brought forth; Before she was pledged חבלֹ she was delivered of a man child. Who has heard of such a thing? who has seen such things? Shall the earth be deflowered and flower in the same day? Or a nation be born at once? For Zion experienced birth pains before she even knew she had a sons to bring forth. [Isa. 49:21; 53:8].

 Before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. 

  זכר     טרם    ל   היא    חבל      בוא        מלט                                                                                                                

The same pretext whereby the word  חיל is punctuated to mean "travail" ---when without the punctuation it generally means to be "enabled," as in "Before she was even able, she brought forth," occurs again here. The underlined and bolded word interpreted "pain," as in, "Before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child," is punctuated (in the MT) in order to continue the problematic interpretation of the passage that began with the punctuation of the word חיל.

The word חבל (interpreted "pain"), also means "cord" or a "pledge." In the Jewish wedding the bride and groom are connected by a "cord" as one of the symbols of the ritual. The "cord" and the "pledge" can speak of the marriage ceremony that takes place under the chuppah..

Since the first statement in the passage isn't speaking of "travail" or "pain" . . . but of being "enabled" to give birth, before she was "able" חיל she brought forth, it becomes apparent that if the meaning of חבל (chet-beit-lamed) is circumcised from the idea of "pain" or "travail,” it  can be properly read to speak of the "cord" חבל or "pledge" חבל associated with the chuppah. It should read, "Before she was pledged to a husband, she was delivered of a man child." -----

With these two corrections the statement reads:

Before she was able, she brought forth, Before she was pledged she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard of such a thing? who hath seen such things?

Rashi notes another anomaly in the passage. The word for "delivered" (מלט mem-lamed-tet) as in "delivered of a man child," is a hapax legomenon. It's the only place in the scripture that the word is used this way. It's not the typical word for giving birth, or delivering a child. Almost everywhere else it speaks of "escape," and not birth. In context, the passage is exclaiming that before the woman is made able to give birth, before she's even pledged to a husband, a male child “escapes” from her "closed-womb."

Without question the context of verses seven through nine seem to be speaking of a birth occurring in an unnatural way. Therefore, it seems there should be a clue in the passage as to how, and why, the birth being spoken of is not typical? Without wanting to open a can of worms, Rashi points out the peculiarity of the word used to speak of a woman giving birth. Which is to say never in the entire scripture is this word (malat מלט ) used to speak of a woman giving birth (except here). It means to "escape." And is most often used to speak of escaping death (being delivered from death).

Since the Abrahamic covenant (and particularly the sign of the covenant) is symbolically related to rescinding the death penalty associated with the original sin of phallic sex (i.e., escaping death through a circumscribed conception), bells and whistles should go off when a passage speaking of virgin birth, i.e., a woman giving birth before being enabled to give birth (yahal), a woman giving birth before being pledged (hebel), implies that the woman can "escape death" (malat) by the delivery of a male-child (zakar), born in an unnatural way whereby he escapes from a womb that in every other case but his is also a tomb (a place of death).

It might seem merely poetic to speak of the one who is uniquely born (echad) being the only  one whose womb is not a tomb.  The un-spiritual mind isn't trained to make connections like the fact that in the Garden of Eden, prior to the original sin (Adam tilling the soil of Eve's body), not only was there no death, but life sprouted from earth that had never been tilled. There was no opening of the earth prior to the opening associated with the earth bringing forth. It was opened for the first time when it first brought forth (Isa. 66:7-8; Gen. 2:4-5). Every living thing born to the earth prior to the original sin of tilling the soil (phallic-sex) was a "womb-opener" (Ex. 13:2). It's the only time the womb, the earth, the body, wasn't also a tomb, i.e., a place where death rains after the earth is tilled.

Until the original sin. Adam was not a tiller of the soil. It was only after he tilled the soil of his own freewill that God condemned him to continually tilling the soil to raise trees with the fruit of death literally dangling from the tree of life.

Before she is made able, she births; before she consummates her pledge [through phallic-sex] she’s delivered of, or by, the birth of a unique male child. Who has heard of such a thing? . . . Shall the earth flower and bring forth the same day the soil is opened for the first time [as it did in the Garden before the rain of death]? . . . Who has seen such a thing? To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he too shall come up out of soil that has neither been tilled nor watered.

Isaiah 66:7-8; 53:1-2.

Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord:

שבר       אני        ו       לא                       אוליד            ה                  יאמר           יהוה  

  

The first word in verse 9 שבר means to "break" or "breach" or "break out." It's used 147 times in the Tanakh and only once is it interpreted (here), to speak of birth. It's another hapax legomenon. Only here is the word use in association with bringing to birth. The word  ילד, later in the verse, is used for bringing to birth. If Rashi and the sages are confronted concerning this original interpretation of the word, they go quiet. But they can't ignore the fact that in the first statement in Isaiah 66:9 there’s a real problem. As translated, the verse says, "Shall I bring to birth and not bring to birth?" ------ Rashi and the sages don't know what to make of the hapax legomenon they find when "breaking" שבר is connected with bringing to birth ילד ---here and only here.

Attempting to make some sense of the nature of the word שבר, Rashi introduces the concept of "confinement" into his interpretation of the passage. Something is confined in a manner that requires the "break-out" associated with the word שבר. ----For Rashi, the mother is confined:

Am I not the One Who causes every woman in confinement to give birth, and now will I shut the womb? This is a question.

Nothing in the context of Isaiah 66:7-9 implies that the woman is confined. It's the child in the womb that's confined. And the confinement is of a particular kind, since the mother has not been enabled to bring forth in the normal manner (phallic-sex), in which case the closed-womb (the virgin womb) would have already been opened prior to the birth. The text is clearly speaking of a particular kind of confinement, that Rashi chooses to associate with the mother, though nothing in the context implies that the mother is confined, while everything suggests that the child is confined, and must "break-out" שבר of a place of confinement so unique to his situation that it justifies the exclamation: Who has heard of such a thing? Who has seen such things? To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

 

Shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

אני        ה    ילד        ו     עצר      אם         אמר       ך             אלהי   

The vav-conjunction and the verb עצר are mistranslated "and shut the womb" rather than "from a closed-womb." The "closed-womb" is the key to the whole passage. It explains the uniqueness of the birth. It explains the delivery of a male child before the mother is enabled. It explains the analogy to the earth being deflowered and flowering the same day; and the “escaping” from the womb. It explains everything within the passage.

Before she was able, she brought forth, Before she was pledged she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard of such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be deflowered and flower the same day? For Zion experienced birth pains before she even knew she had sons to bear. ---- Shall I break-free and not come forth saith the Lord?  Shall I come out of the confinement of a closed-womb saith thy God.

Interpreted in a manner consistent with the spirit of the text, the natural flow of the text, the passage speaks of a particular event that's "new" and unheard of. This new and unheard of event is the opening of a womb which is, remarkably, closed, even though a pregnancy has taken place. Within a kerygmatic framework, speaking of the birth of a Jewish firstborn from a sealed-womb isn't that remarkable since needing to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth passed through the closed-womb of a virgin is passé so far as the church is concerned.

But Isaiah is speaking from within a Jewish framework. He's implying a new and extraordinary revelation. A Jewish woman is going to give birth before she's been enabled for such a thing. Isaiah speaks of a woman experiencing birth pains before she has any reason to expect such a thing. He speaks of a woman being deflowered (the membrane of her virginity being opened) the same day she gives birth to a firstborn male. Isaiah remarks concerning the remarkable nature of such a thing when he asks the same question he asked in chapter 53, Who has heard of such a thing? to whom has such a thing been revealed? to whom has the appearance of the Lord, from un-tilled soil (53:2) been made known?