The translation of Isaiah 7:14 has been a subject of debate going all the way back to the 2nd century’s
Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr.
The Hebrew text uses the word
alma which means a young girl of marriage age. Normally such a girl would be a virgin but the word does not literally mean virgin. The context also is unclear as to whether she has already conceived or is about to conceive, it could be a young girl who just got married and recently became pregnant.
The Greek text in the LXX uses the word
parthenos which is literally virgin, the word for young woman would have been
neanis but that is not used. The context is clear that the girl has not yet engaged in marital relations and the conception is a future event.
Jewish tradition has generally understood that Isaiah was prophesying to King Ahaz about the future King Hezekiah and that the
alma/
parthenos was a recent (or soon to be) wife of King Ahaz. This is the “face value” interpretation of the passage and the one to which the professor is teaching.
However, we are Christians and as such we believe that the New Testament is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Matthew, upon reflecting on the meaning of the virgin birth, was inspired by the Holy Spirit to see a connection between the prophesy of Isaiah and the birth of Jesus. Isaiah might not have directly intended a future messianic prophecy but God inspired that passage in Isaiah to be recorded and inspired Matthew to make the connection.
Interpretation of the Bible in the Church:
One thing that gives the Bible an inner unity, unique of its kind, is the fact that later biblical writings often depend upon earlier ones. These more recent writings allude to older ones, create “re-readings” (re-lectures) which develop new aspects of meaning, sometimes quite different from the original sense. A text may also make explicit reference to older passages, whether it is to deepen their meaning or to make known their fulfillment…
…As always, the relationship between Scripture and the events which bring it to fulfillment is not one of simple material correspondence. On the contrary, there is mutual illumination and a progress that is dialectic: What becomes clear is that Scripture reveals the meaning of events and that events reveal the meaning of Scripture, that is, they require that certain aspects of the received interpretation be set aside and a new interpretation adopted.
The professor is correct that a Jewish person would not necessarily see a promise of a future messiah born to a virgin but as Christians we read the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament (Catechism, 129). God often prefigured future events with current events, thus while Isaiah may have only thought his words applied to one situation God intended them for both the present and future. When the New Testament makes a connection between Jesus Christ and a prophesy from the Old Testament we believe it is by divine revelation that such a connection was passed on through the Scriptures. The fact that Matthew specifically chooses to use the Greek word for virgin (
parthenos) rather than the Greek word for young woman (
neanis) is taken by Christians to be a divine revelation that virgin is the proper understanding.
Due to the double fulfillment of the prophecy (partially in Hezekiah and fully in Jesus) using the word “young woman” in translating Isaiah is not problematic (Hezekiah’s mother clearly conceived him the usual way and Mary was a young woman) but I would be a bit weary about ultimately what road someone is trying to go down when emphasizing that point…
