22 The second half
of this verse is one of the most disputed in the entire book. Interpretations
vary greatly and are often mutually exclusive. Many scholars admit that a
satisfactory solution is not attainable; no interpretation has been accepted by
a majority of scholars. The verse is difficult because the background is
lacking. One view sees here a prophecy of the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus
Christ. This is an ancient interpretation, coming from the church fathers; but
it is rejected by the majority of interpreters. It is based on the concept of
the Lord’s creation of “a new thing,” obviously something miraculous, and the
idea of a woman in some way controlling a man (so Broadbent, Streane et al.).
This view is invalid for the following reasons.
1. The word “woman” (neqēḇāh, lit., “a female”)
does not even have the definite article (cf. Isa 7:14).
2. The word “woman” cannot be
made to mean a virgin. In fact, it is a most general word for woman in
contradistinction to man.
3. The verb sāḇaḇ (“surround”) is poles apart from the idea of conceiving.
4. The interpretation is ill
suited to the context. How does it flow from its context? Granted that the word
“virgin” occurs in v.21 and earlier in v.4; but it is plain that these
references are to Israel, not an individual. The interpretation is reverent,
but not possible.
Other solutions do not fare much
better. Some propose that the “new thing” is a woman who protects a man. Thus
it describes a physically weaker partner surrounding and sustaining a stronger
one (so Harrison). A second proposal is that “Virgin Israel” returns to the
Lord (so Hyatt). A third one is that the words refer to the security Israel
will enjoy so that the women will be able to protect the nation in case of
attack, allowing the men to be occupied with their work (so Cundall). A fourth
view is that, though the Lord has embraced the woman Israel in love, the latter
days will witness a situation in which the woman Israel will seek after and
embrace her lover, the Lord (so Jensen). A fifth view suggests that the woman
will propose marriage to the man; that is, Israel will seek union with the
Lord. This requires the translation “a female will turn into a man”—viz., she
becomes of manly character, no longer hesitant in returning to God but resolute
in doing so (so Freedman). A sixth view is that Israel will overcome the power
of the Gentiles (so H.A. Ironside, Notes
on the Prophecy and Lamentations of Jeremiah [New York: Loizeaux Brothers,
1946], ad loc.). Finally, some interpret the verse to mean that Israel, weak as
a woman, becomes superior to the strong Babylonians (so Calvin, though he
agrees with the Fathers that it refers to the Virgin Birth). With such an
abundance of interpretations, it is foolhardy to be dogmatic about the meaning
of these puzzling words. On the whole, it seems best to take them as a
proverbial saying about something amazing and hard to believe. The meaning is
beyond present solution (so Bright et al.). (Charles L. Feinberg, “Jeremiah,”
in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein [Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1986], 6:571)
To
Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com
Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com