Let’s take a closer look at what John has to say.
eg, Job 31:1
(JPS) “I made a covenant with mine eyes; how then should I look upon a maid?”
betulah here is ‘maid’, which makes sense for how would Job know which lady was a virgin or not?
I hold that virgin is really applied to a woman in the betrothed or consecrated state.
“Chaste fiancee” is a potential equivalent in English – but it isn’t a single word.
We don’t seem to have a positive connotation word for “chaste woman” that comes to mind readily.
In Job 31:1, the first part means Job is married/consecrated and therefore his eyes are bound to a covenant. The second part repeats the first idea – “look” means covenant / marry. The second part is a question that can be taken in several ways – but which will lead to the same conclusion.
“a” maid is an unmarried/betrothed/marriageable woman. So, how should Job ‘look’ (make a covenant with) “
a chaste fiancee”? (Not necessarily his, for it is “a” chaste fiancee).
Clearly, there would be nothing wrong if she was any marriageable young lady not betrothed. But the phrasing of the question is such that the second sentence depends on the first – “how,
then,” should he ‘look’ at a virgin? maid?
a chaste fiancee?
The question is clearly in the negative. Job should NOT look on a virgin because it would break his covenant with his eyes. The following verses support that reading (I don’t have the JPS, but several translations show the same trend).
Recall also that Jewish society allowed polygamy at times (at least for the rich) and Job was originally quite rich.
If the word merely meant “virgin”, then it doesn’t make much sense because he might be able to marry another woman. But, since any ‘maid’ or ‘virgin’ would violate his covenant, there has to be another reason that it is sinful. There are two possibilities, he is already married and polygamy rejected – at which point we are looking at “If a man looks upon a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her”. The second is that this maid is not betrothed to Job. She is a woman
engaged to someone else. It doesn’t matter which is chosen – the passage is about adultery. If polygamy is allowed, the woman is engaged to someone else. If polygamy is not allowed, that marriageable woman is not Job’s. In either event, at the present moment she is as good as another man’s bride.
Job 31:8-10 confirms this interpretation solidly. Job says, if I have done this, then let “my own wife be another man’s whore”.
Looking at a Virgin isn’t a sin in and of itself, if she is free to marry and so is the looker, and the look is chaste then Job wouldn’t be questioning that as sinful. That is why the idea of “virgin” is suggestive of the real meaning, but isn’t exact. It is a woman at risk of defilement; a woman betrothed with a predator nearby. She is like Eve who had no relations with Adam until
AFTER the serpent beguiled her.
The second passage that John7 quoted is the kind of thing that clearly ties the meaning back to an engaged/consecrated woman. I pointed out the passage from kings which shows Isaiah using ‘virgin’ (in Greek) as an adjective for the people that were to be in covenant with God. Now, consider the psalm I took apart to focus on one aspect of the immaculate conception. There is an image there that is very important. Here’s the NABRE:
NABRE Psalm 139
The All-knowing and Ever-present God
…
[15] My bones are not hidden from you,
When I was being made in secret,
fashioned in the depths of the earth.*
[16] Your eyes saw me unformed;
in your book all are written down;
my days were shaped, before one came to be.
**
NOTES**
139:15 The depths of the earth: figurative language for the womb, stressing the hidden and mysterious operations that occur there.
Let’s begin by recalling the note here on the psalm. Depths of the Earth, or Earth, is an image of a womb for the dust/dirt of man’s body. God forms the clay/slip/seed into a body in a woman’s womb. Remember man you are dust and to dust you will return.
Now, look at the passage from Isaiah which uses “virgin”.
eg where betulah is translated ‘virgin’, Is 47:1-9 (JPS)
“Come down, and sit in the dust, O **virgin **daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans; for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate…9 But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood; in their full measure shall they come upon thee, for the multitude of thy sorceries, and the great abundance of thine enchantments.”
here in vs 1 betulah is ‘virgin’, but in verse 9 the virgin loses children and husband, which doesn’t make sense.
neither almah or betulah “in and of itself would clearly and unequivocally convey the meaning of virgin.”(M.Brown)
He’s right! That’s because she should be virgin, but isn’t – she’s a betrothed woman caught in adultery and suffering a curse. I haven’t translated the Hebrew… (Continued).
