Featured Isaiah 7:14 revisited

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el. -- RSV

In the Bible versions forum, Salty opened a thread about the Revised Standard Version. As was bound happen, its most controversial verse translation -- Isaiah 7:14 -- was brought up. We went a long ways down that rabbit trail before Moderator Cassidy pointed out how far away from the OP we had gotten. Thinking some might want to discuss it further while leaving Salty's thread for more apt discussion of the Revised Standard Version Bible, I decided to start a thread on Isaiah 7:14. Here's a taste of some of the talk over there.

 

Re Isaiah 7:14, in his commentary on The Prophecy of Isaiah (pp. 84-85) J. Alec Motyer, writes:

"The translation virgin ('alma) is widely disputed on the ground that the word means only 'young woman' and that the technical word for 'virgin' is beṯûla. Of the nine occurrences of 'alma those in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and the title of Psalm 46 are presumably a musical direction but no longer understood. In Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; and Song of Solomon 1:3 the context throws no decisive light on the meaning of the word. In Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 the reference is unquestionably to an unmarried girl, and in Song of Solomon 6:8 the alamot, contrasted with queens and concubines, are unmarried and virgin. Thus, wherever the context allows a judgment, 'alma is not a general term meaning 'young woman' but a specific one meaning 'virgin'. It is worth noting that outside the Bible, so far as may be ascertained, 'alma was 'never used of a married woman'."

"Genesis 24 is particularly important as providing a direct comparison of 'alma and beṯûla. Abraham's servant's prayer (24:14) is couched in terms of a 'girl' (naara) who is to marry Isaac. In verse 16 the approaching Rebekah is described as female (naara), of marriageable age (beṯûla) and single ('no man had ever lain with her'). The qualifying words indicate that by itself beṯûla is not specific. In the light of this accumulating knowledge of Rebekah, verse 43 finally describes her as 'alma, which is clearly a summary term for 'female, marriageable, unmarried'. There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used beṯûla. 'alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing 'virgin birth' and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning."

 

It is well to admit that interpreting the details of Isaiah 7:14 in its context cause difficulty and consternation. How was the virgin birth of Jesus a sign to a king who lived maybe 700 years before that happened? Most all conservatives agree on the remote fulfillment in Jesus born of Mary, a virgin, while wrangling over the immediate application (if there is one).

The two main ideas I have seen regarding this as a dual prophecy are that the immediate Immanuel is:

• Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, or
• Maher-shalal-hash-baz, son of Isaiah

These to have the following difficulties. The mathematics of Hezekiah's age when he became king shows he was already born before this time (He was 25 years old when he began to reign, and Ahaz's reign only lasted 16 years). God told Isaiah to name his second son Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which is not the same name and means something different than Immanuel. The rank assigned to Immanuel in Isaiah 8:8 also doesn't seem to fit Isaiah's son.

Another interpretation (which I hold, but have not heard as often, and which is not without some difficulties of its own) is that (1) verses 14-15 concern Jesus, the Immanuel, God with us, and is a sign to the house of David (you, plural, v. 14), and that (2) and verse 16 concerns Isaiah's son Shearjashub, who Isaiah brought with him, and is a sign to Ahaz (thee, singular, v. 7). This includes an immediate sign that Ahaz can "read" (i.e., before Isaiah's son knows enough to refuse the evil and choose the good, two kings will be destroyed, verses 8-9, 16), and a future sign to the nation of the coming Messiah.

 

A valid point, though I'd say we have the advantage of Matthew explaining that Jesus was Immanuel (and we know otherwise he was God, with us), while we have no such explanation regarding Isaiah's son.

 

How much weight should we give the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation, which also chose to translate the Hebrew 'alma with the Greek parthenos?

LXX, version used by Church of Greece:
14 διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Εμμανουήλ·
L. C. L. Brenton English translation of LXX
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.

 

Aside from the debate over the RSV translation, it seems that some of the confusion comes from the discussion of whether Isaiah's "the virgin shall conceive" prophecy is a dual prophecy with both a remote fulfillment in the future and an immediate application in Ahaz's time, or just a prophecy about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. It is difficult to interpret any immediate application as a virgin birth.

 

My pastor when I surrendered to preach and was ordained was a pretty good Old Testament scholar, and he held a view of dual prophecy here in Isaiah 7:14 (so I'm not interested in throwing anyone under the bus, so to speak). I think that was the first time I had heard that view espoused. In very conservative circles it is easy to be misunderstood as being soft on the virgin birth when defending that view. Even though the person may not be soft on the virgin birth, that is what the other person perceives (and some of that may go back to the 1950s debate over the RSV Bible).

On the other hand, since I think 'alma is to be perceived as virgin here, then the dual prophecy -- a birth fulfilled by a young woman in Ahaz's day and a virgin in Mary's day -- doesn't work for me. I have lit on another interpretation which I mentioned above, but which may have been lost in the multiple quotes and posts I made. I have not heard this posited as often, and it has some difficulties of its own. But this idea is that (1) verses 14-15 are a prophecy about Jesus, the Immanuel, God with us, born of a virgin, and is a sign to the house of David (you, plural, v. 14), and that (2) verse 16 is about Isaiah's son Shearjashub, whom Isaiah brought with him, and is a sign to Ahaz (thee, singular, v. 7). This context then includes an immediate sign that Ahaz can see fulfilled (i.e., before Isaiah's son knows enough to refuse the evil and choose the good, two kings will be destroyed, verses 8-9, 16), and a future sign to the nation of the coming Messiah -- but the specific verse 14 only refers to one birth, that of Jesus.

 

I do not think we are in any general disagreement, though my writing may not be clear. I believe that verse 14 is a prophecy of a sign to the people of Israel -- "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign..." "You" here is plural, meaning the sign in verse 14 is directed to the nation, not to Ahaz alone. I believe that what follows verse 14 is not referring to Jesus, but rather to the child that Isaiah brought with him, Shearjashub (v. 3 "Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son...").

No, I do not think it is difficult for Isaiah 7:14 to refer to the birth of Jesus Christ. That is what I believe it refers to. When I wrote, "It is difficult to interpret any immediate application as a virgin birth" I mean that any child supposedly referred to as being born in the time of Ahaz (as is held in the dual prophecy theory) could not have been born of a virgin. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ is an unique event, one of a kind.