P
Padraig_77
Guest
Could anyone provide me with some good material dealing with the prophecy of Isaias 7:14, showing that in the original language actually says “Virgin” not “Young Woman”. Thanks.
- Status
P
PastorVW
Guest
Isa 7:14 (NIV)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and **(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa 7:14&version=31#fen-NIV-17797b”)] will call him Immanuel. c]
Footnotes:
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and **(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa 7:14&version=31#fen-NIV-17797b”)] will call him Immanuel. c]
Footnotes:
*]Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew is plural.
*]Isaiah 7:14 Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls * and he * or * and they *
*]Isaiah 7:14 * Immanuel * means * God with us * .
I think that if one renders it as “young woman” rather than “virgin” - the verse simply falls apart. What kind of “sign” would a young woman becoming pregnant and having a son be? The answer is none at all!
Therefore, the only translation that makes sense is “virgin”.
That’s how I see it
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
I would suggest reading Isaiah. You will notice that like many Old Testament prophecies, it’s not obviously prophecy about Jesus at the time.
It appears likely Isaiah specifically indicated a young woman and foretold that she whould give birth. It wasn’t really focused on her sexual experience or lack thereof. Some translations even want to say that it’s a miraculous birth but that also goes beyond the text. The birth would be a confirmation that what the prophet was saying would come to pass. It’s not saying the woman, as a virgin, would give birth. Or that any miracle, as such, was involved in the contemporary birth. The foretelling of course, is miraculous.
By translating it as virgin, it can become an error in reading, especially in those translations that also use miraculous birth, because then it seems to be a statement that Jesus is the second child born to a virgin.
JJ
It appears likely Isaiah specifically indicated a young woman and foretold that she whould give birth. It wasn’t really focused on her sexual experience or lack thereof. Some translations even want to say that it’s a miraculous birth but that also goes beyond the text. The birth would be a confirmation that what the prophet was saying would come to pass. It’s not saying the woman, as a virgin, would give birth. Or that any miracle, as such, was involved in the contemporary birth. The foretelling of course, is miraculous.
By translating it as virgin, it can become an error in reading, especially in those translations that also use miraculous birth, because then it seems to be a statement that Jesus is the second child born to a virgin.
JJ
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
It says neither virgin nor young woman.
It says 'almah, which refers to a young unmarried woman of marrying age. In the social and religious context of ancient Israel, where young women married at a certain age (generally in their teens) and where young women who did not remain virgins until marriage were put to death (Deut 22:20-21), an 'almah would be a virgin. So 'almah means a virgin of marrying age, who is not yet betrothed.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Isa 7:14 (NIV)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and **(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa 7:14&version=31#fen-NIV-17797b”)] will call him Immanuel. c]
Footnotes:
Therefore, the only translation that makes sense is “virgin”.
- Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew is plural.
- Isaiah 7:14 Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls *and he *or *and they *
- Isaiah 7:14 *Immanuel *means *God with us *.
I think that if one renders it as “young woman” rather than “virgin” - the verse simply falls apart. What kind of “sign” would a young woman becoming pregnant and having a son be? The answer is none at all!
That’s how I see it
In context, as part of a longer oracle [see the end], “young woman” (but in the sense explained by the OP) makes very good sense. The “directly Messianic” interpretation - that Isaiah was inspired to prophecy the Incarnation - is another matter.
Apart from anything else, Isaiah’s oracle is from the 8th century BC - long before the birth of Jesus. What would be the use of an oracle prophesying something hundreds of years in the future, when Ahaz of Judah is being offered a sign in the 8th century BC ? Ahaz would be almost as old as some of the Patriarchs, if the birth of Jesus is what Isaiah meant.
Not only is the word betulah (= virgin) not used; almah (= young woman) would be very appropriate, if the woman is the wife of Ahaz - IOW, his queen. The “child” would then be Hezekiah, & the oracle of the prophet would be an announcement that God is with His people in the difficult & dangerous political circumstances of that time: the oracle would amount to a promise that God will give a son to the king, thereby continuing the dynasty of David. And there are other possibilities - Isaiah’s son may be meant.
The interpretation accounts for the mention of the Assyrians later on - there was no Assyria when Jesus was born, but in the 8th century it was the great power of its time; it was a very formidable & aggressive nation. 7.16 does not favour the “long-range” interpretation - it would be meaningless if the child were not born in the prophet’s times.
The interpretation in Matthew is not the original meaning of Isaiah’s words - Matthew is applying an OT text to Jesus, not because Jesus is predicted by Isaiah, but because the identity of Jesus is expressed by those words, & because for Matthew they are even more appropriate as a description of Jesus than of Hezekiah (or whoever was intended in Isaiah’s time). That Jesus is “God-with-us” is no reason to suppose that the OT prophet was referring to Him - “God is with” His people in ways other than by a Divine Incarnation. To see only Jesus as meant, saves Matthew’s use of the verse at the cost of making it unintelligible in its OT context. All of Isaiah’s oracles can be understood as referring to his own time - a “long-range” prophecy would be pretty well unique. That was not how the Prophets worked - they spoke to their own times, as Isaiah does elsewhere; detach him from his own time, & the result is the sort of interpretation that sees the USA referred to in (I think) Isa.19. If he can mean Jesus as well as an 8th-century infant, maybe he can mean a host of other people; anything becomes possible, if Isaiah’s own context is ignored, or is collapsed into Matthew’s use of one verse from his oracle. If we ignore the context, we miss some of the meaning.
How is the birth of a mortal child a sign ? Signs have to sign-ify - they don’t need to be miraculous or supernatural in themselves; what is needed is that God should signify something to people, & that the something should be interpreted - by a prophet, for example. What the something used to sign-ify might be, is of no great importance; the meaning, not the vehicle conveying the meaning, is what matters. In this case, a woman about to have a child is the vehicle of the meaning God is communicating, & Isaiah gives the interpretation. On another occasion, Isaiah went “naked for a sign” in chapter 20, to show in his own person what being taken into captivity would mean. That was not centuries later, nor was it supernatural - but it was a sign even so.
None of this is to deny the importance of what Matthew (or his source) makes of the Prophet’s words (or rather, of some of them); it means only that what Matthew made of the words quoted in Matt. 1.23 from Isa. 7.14 is not quite
the same as what the Prophet was talking about.
That’s how I see it- Isa 7:10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,
- Isa 7:11 “Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”
- Isa 7:12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.”
- Isa 7:13 And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?
- Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el.
- Isa 7:15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
- Isa 7:16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.
- Isa 7:17 The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah–the king of Assyria."
- Isa 7:18 In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly which is at the sources of the streams of Egypt, and for the bee which is in the land of Assyria.
- Isa 7:19 And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines, and in the clefts of the rocks, and on all the thornbushes, and on all the pastures.
- Isa 7:20 In that day the Lord will shave with a razor which is hired beyond the River–with the king of Assyria–the head and the hair of the feet, and it will sweep away the beard also.
- Isa 7:21 In that day a man will keep alive a young cow and two sheep;
- Isa 7:22 and because of the abundance of milk which they give, he will eat curds; for every one that is left in the land will eat curds and honey.
- Isa 7:23 In that day every place where there used to be a thousand vines, worth a thousand shekels of silver, will become briers and thorns.
- Isa 7:24 With bow and arrows men will come there, for all the land will be briers and thorns;
- Isa 7:25 and as for all the hills which used to be hoed with a hoe, you will not come there for fear of briers and thorns; but they will become a place where cattle are let loose and where sheep tread.
T
tm30
Guest
The problem with this POV is that you are inadvertantly transferring the prophecy from the will of God to the will of Isaiah. Whether or not Isaiah intended to prophecy Jesus is irrelevant. God prophesied this through Isaiah. The Church has taught that prophesy can have a both/and characteristic. The prophet does not have to know that in prophesying a more immediate figure, he is doing God’s bidding to also prophesy a later, greater fulfillment of the same words.In context, as part of a longer oracle [see the end], “young woman” (but in the sense explained by the OP) makes very good sense. The “directly Messianic” interpretation - that Isaiah was inspired to prophecy the Incarnation - is another matter.
Apart from anything else, Isaiah’s oracle is from the 8th century BC - long before the birth of Jesus. What would be the use of an oracle prophesying something hundreds of years in the future, when Ahaz of Judah is being offered a sign in the 8th century BC ? Ahaz would be almost as old as some of the Patriarchs, if the birth of Jesus is what Isaiah meant.
A great example of this is Revelation. John’s missive was totally relevant to the travails of Christianity under persecution from Rome, but it is also completely relevant to the Final Judgment of the world. We can’t say, “well, John couldn’t have possibly been prophesying the end of the world because it’s much more obvious the problems he described were taking place as he wrote this.” No, it’s both/and.
The same for Isaiah. In the more immediate sense, he was prophesying Hezekiah. But the greater fulfillment is the prophesying of Christ. Don’t forget, God challenged Ahaz to ask for a sign that stretched the imagination. A mere ‘young girl’ bearing a child is a rather underwhelming proof of His own challenge. A “virgin” bearing a child, indeed, stretches the limits of human reason.
The sign of Emmanuel is in the timing through a normal birth, not a virgin birth.
The context of Isaiah 7 clearly tells that the birth of Emmanuel will mark the decline of the invading nations of Israel and Syria. True enough, within 65 years, both nations were out of the picture, having fallen to the Assyrian Empire.
The problem with many interpreters is that when they read Isaiah 7, they automatically think Jesus, when in fact, the primary meaning of the oracle was for the immediate time, not for the future. Almah means young woman, and carries no implication of her civil or sexual status. So even if a young woman is expected to be a virgin when unmarried, forcing “virgin” into it based on culture is not sound translation.
I will never object to Isaiah 7:14 translated as virgin, out of respect to the longstanding tradition of the Church. But “young woman” or “maiden” is a fine translation for the Old Testament rendering of the passage. It is NEVER acceptable, however, in Matthew 1:23.
The context of Isaiah 7 clearly tells that the birth of Emmanuel will mark the decline of the invading nations of Israel and Syria. True enough, within 65 years, both nations were out of the picture, having fallen to the Assyrian Empire.
The problem with many interpreters is that when they read Isaiah 7, they automatically think Jesus, when in fact, the primary meaning of the oracle was for the immediate time, not for the future. Almah means young woman, and carries no implication of her civil or sexual status. So even if a young woman is expected to be a virgin when unmarried, forcing “virgin” into it based on culture is not sound translation.
I will never object to Isaiah 7:14 translated as virgin, out of respect to the longstanding tradition of the Church. But “young woman” or “maiden” is a fine translation for the Old Testament rendering of the passage. It is NEVER acceptable, however, in Matthew 1:23.
*Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.(NRSV, Is 7:14) *
I read:
PARQENOS is used in Is 7:14. It can be translated as:
I think I would favor young woman.
I read:
The NT was written in Greek and early Christians used the Greek Septuagint for the OT. In it
PARQENOS is used in Is 7:14. It can be translated as:
So I would suggest you can use virgin, *young woman *or a girl of marriage-able age.
I think I would favor young woman.
P
PastorVW
Guest
I have read all the arguments - yet none of them effectively address the simple issue I raised in my first post. What group of people have children? Is it not young women - married and unmarried? How in the world could this be a sign?
A sign must be something unusual. An unmarried woman giving birth is not unusual. Neither is a married woman giving birth.
Would a verse that said, “The Lord will give you a sign, the sun will rise” make any sense? Of course not, the sun rising is a common thing - just like a young woman, or woman of marriageable age having a child!
The only translation that provides a sign is “virgin”.
Again, that’s how I see it.
A sign must be something unusual. An unmarried woman giving birth is not unusual. Neither is a married woman giving birth.
Would a verse that said, “The Lord will give you a sign, the sun will rise” make any sense? Of course not, the sun rising is a common thing - just like a young woman, or woman of marriageable age having a child!
The only translation that provides a sign is “virgin”.
Again, that’s how I see it.
The sign can also be “the sun will rise, and within 5 hours of that, Washington will be no more”. There’s nothing unusual about the sun rising. Having Washington blown to smithereens, however, is big news.
As I said, the sign is in the timing, not in any miraculous birth. A married woman giving birth is not unusual. A married giving birth, naming him Emmanuel, and having two invading nations fall within a generation of that birth* is* unusual. To see the sign in its immediate fulfillment, one cannot stop at v.14. The whole chapter must be read in context. The whole oracle is not merely the birth, but:
- The young woman is pregnant;
- Emmanuel will be born; and
- Within a generation of his birth, Israel and Syria will fall.
R
Ruthie
Guest
A married giving birth, naming him Emmanuel, and having two invading nations fall within a generation of that birth* is unusual.
*
Hmmm… I wonder if any babies within one generation of WWII were named Emmanuel?
No, I must agree with PastorVW on this one.
Ruthie
*
Hmmm… I wonder if any babies within one generation of WWII were named Emmanuel?
No, I must agree with PastorVW on this one.
Ruthie
Again, context. The oracle clearly does not refer to WWII. It refers to the joint Israelite-Aramean invasion of Judah during the reign of Ahaz, and that war only. The oracle prophesied the exact time the threat would recede from Judah. When Emmanuel would be born, that signals the beginning of the fall of Israel and Syria.A married giving birth, naming him Emmanuel, and having two invading nations fall within a generation of that birth* is unusual.
*
Hmmm… I wonder if any babies within one generation of WWII were named Emmanuel?
No, I must agree with PastorVW on this one.
Ruthie
As far as the immediate fulfillment is concerned, the whole chapter 7 of Isaiah points to only one period of history, and was a sign to be fulfilled for THAT generation.
Just read the whole Isaiah 7 in context, and you’ll get the historical background, and why a virgin birth is not necessary for this particular passage in the Old Testament. That’s why one need not force “virgin” if translating from the Hebrew.
This allowance does not apply if one is translating from the Greek LXX.
But I reiterate: the rendering of the passage in Matthew 1:23, having been lifted from the LXX, CANNOT be translated as “young woman”. Of course, I’m with the Church in saying that in Jesus, the Emmanuel prophecy comes to its full meaning, and the LXX rendering, which came to contain “parthenos” was amazingly fulfilled in Jesus.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
St. Justin Martyr, writing about A.D. 155, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, discusses this topic at some length in chapters 43 and 66-84. If I understand him correctly, in the days of Ptolemy, prior to the time of Christ, the word in question was translated into Greek as “virgin” by the seventy-two Jewish elders (Septuagint). He suggests that the Hebrew text used by the Jews of his day that reads “young woman” is a corruption of the original (perhaps a deliberate corruption of the text by Jews in response to Christians using it as a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ). He argues that a “young woman” giving birth is not much of a sign. He also argues against Hezekiah being the promised son, as the Jews of Justin’s day supposed, by pointing out that neither Hezekiah nor any other Jew, except Jesus Christ, fulfilled the things prophesied concerning the promised son.
Todd
thank you for your reference to St Justin.
There are two issues.
thank you for your reference to St Justin.
There are two issues.
- In Is 7:14 is *virgin *or *young woman *preferred?
- This interpretation is not a criticism of the perpetual virginity of Mary or of anything in the NT.
P
peary1
Guest
**The both meant the same thing in those days: a “young woman” was assumed to have not had sexual intercourse until married.
“…some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew, almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which alone could fulfill the divinely given terms of Immanuel’s mission, and in which the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God was to fulfill also the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom.” (NAB notes)
“Mary’s questioning response is a denial of sexual relations and is used by Luke to lead to the angel’s declaration about the Spirit’s role in the conception of this child (Luke 1:35). According to Luke, the virginal conception of Jesus takes place through the holy Spirit, the power of God, and therefore Jesus has a unique relationship to Yahweh: he is Son of God.” (NAB notes)**
V
Valke2
Guest
well, I would respond that the sign is not the woman but the baby.Therefore, the only translation that makes sense is “virgin”.
That’s how I see it
Ahaz king of Jerusalem was besieged. God has a message for Ahaz (kign of Jerusalem) ANd He has Isaiah deliver it. Ahaz doesn’t like the message. So the king is told he will get a sign.
And Hashem spoke again unto Ahaz, saying:
‘Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.’
But Ahaz said: ‘I will not ask, neither will I try the LORD.’
And he said: 'Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also?
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (the literal translation is a lot more confusing).
Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.
יThe Lord shall bring upon the, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria’.
We interpret 7:14 to be discussing a sign that will be sent to Ahaz. Several centuries before Jesus. When talking about the “young woman” , she is referred to in the present tense, and as being already pregnant. It is not a prediction of the future (regarding her pregnancy) as it is an existing event at the time of Isaiah. I
Isaiah Chapter 7 was not traditionally viewed by Jews as a messianic prophecy for the above stated reasons.
In short: the sign is the child not the woman or the birth.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I heard both sides of spectrum here and I would have have to agree with Ron on this one. Although young woman has been used in that verse in some translations and some earlier translations used the word Maid (different spelling). I believe that the Tyndale NT was one that used maid instead of virgin. I think in the case of Isaiah 7:14 that it isn’t acceptable to say young woman or maiden. I also find it disrespectful to be young woman or maiden. I do however, agree that it is never acceptable in Matthew 1:23. I find it redundant to say its ok in Isaiah 7:14 and not in Mathew 1:23.
R
Ruthie
Guest
Porthos, I should have made it plain that my tongue was in my cheek! 
Of course, I’m with the Church in saying that in Jesus, the Emmanuel prophecy comes to its full meaning, and the LXX rendering, which came to contain “parthenos” was amazingly fulfilled in Jesus.
Oh, good! You had me worried for a minute, there!
Ruthie
Of course, I’m with the Church in saying that in Jesus, the Emmanuel prophecy comes to its full meaning, and the LXX rendering, which came to contain “parthenos” was amazingly fulfilled in Jesus.
Oh, good! You had me worried for a minute, there!
Ruthie
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I’ll tell you where you’re all getting it wrong!
Matthew isn’t “interpreting” what Isaiah said–the Holy Spirit is interpreting what Isaiah said.
The Holy Spirit is not inconsistent.
The Holy Spirit did not inspire young woman in Isaiah and virgin in Matthew!
Is it possible that young woman textual varients of Isaiah existed soon after Isaiah wrote the original?
Of course!
Problem solved!
Look–if the Holy Spirit inspired virgin in Matthew and the Catholic Church has consistently favored virgin–who cares what ANY ancient textual varient that uses young woman says–if one does not certifiably KNOW that Isaiah inspired by the Holy Spirit originally penned it?
Matthew isn’t “interpreting” what Isaiah said–the Holy Spirit is interpreting what Isaiah said.
The Holy Spirit is not inconsistent.
The Holy Spirit did not inspire young woman in Isaiah and virgin in Matthew!
Is it possible that young woman textual varients of Isaiah existed soon after Isaiah wrote the original?
Of course!
Problem solved!
Look–if the Holy Spirit inspired virgin in Matthew and the Catholic Church has consistently favored virgin–who cares what ANY ancient textual varient that uses young woman says–if one does not certifiably KNOW that Isaiah inspired by the Holy Spirit originally penned it?
C
Chesster
Guest
Saint Jerome says that Almah means a hidden virgin:
Against Jovinianus - Book 1
- Status