Question on Isaiah 7:14 -- was the Messianic prophecy referring to a 'young woman' or 'virgin'?

[SeekAndFind]

I have a questions to all of you knowledgable Biblical Scholars out there and it relates to the so-called Messianic Prophecy in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. It is relevant as we celebrate the Christmas Season.

“Does Isaiah 7:14 contain a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?

Some suggest that Isaiah’s statement should be correctly translated as a ‘young woman’ (not necessarily a ‘virgin’) of his day, who would conceive and give birth to a child, and that this event would be a sign to Hezekiah.

It is then further said that Matthew took that text and applied it to Jesus’ birth, though, allegedly, this was not the meaning of the passage originally. How do we respond to this assertion?”

Some also claimed that a real boy named Emmanuel was born.

How do you respond to this claim ?

Thanks.

[Tzfat]

As pointed out above, we are deferring to the experts. In this case, we are deferring to the Hellenistic Jews who are much closer temporally to the original text than any person living today, and also much closer than the Masoretes which fixed the modern Hebrew text.

Masoretic text is "Modern Hebrew"? Please, don't let your conspiracy theory bias show. Shame on you. You should know that the Isaiah Scroll discovered at Qumron has Isaiah 7:14 EXACTLY as the Masoretic text. So much for THAT conspiracy.

Are you claiming the LXX is inspired? Sheesh.

[ml/nj]

Properly translated the verse refers to a young woman with child, rather than a virgin who shall conceive.

If this is true, that would mean that almost all popular English translations of this verse from King James to New American Standard to New International Version are improper translations ??

Yes they are. I think I can give an even simpler example from this past week's Torah portion. Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dreams to mean that there will be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of ra-ah. EVERYONE from King James to Everett Fox translates ra-ah as "famine." But it cannot mean famine, for if it did Joseph would have subverted the will of G-d. There was no famine in Egypt. There was plenty to eat because Joseph stockpiled grain. What there was was drought. This must be the meaning of the word ra-ah in the text. (BTW, when Everett Fox pooh-pooh'd this analysis, my Harvard educated rabbi said Fox did so because he didn't think of it himself.)

I have a Zondervan (Christian Publisher) Interlinear translation of the Bible. In the introduction to the volume with Isaiah, they include this in the Introduction:

How Not to Use the NIVIHEOT*

Above all, no one should attempt to use this volume to criticize another translation or to "prove" a point of interpretation. As mentioned above, the vocabulary is that of the NIV. The appearance of Hebrew on the page imparts no additional authority to the definition of any given word.

For example, in Isaiah 7:14, because the NIV translators chose "the virgin" to translate the Hebrew word ha-alma [ML/NJ transliteration, Hebrew characters in quoted text], the interlinear translation reflects this choice rather than "the young woman" which might be the better option linguistically, contextually, and theologically. ...

*New International Version Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament

Where the words "the virgin" appear in the interlinear translation, there is a footnote directing readers to this comment in the introduction quoted above.

The word following ha-alma in the Isaiah text is ha-rah, which means pregnant. Just get a Hebrew-English dictionary and check it out. (Adjectives often follow the noun they modify in Hebrew. I really don't think there is any question about this.)

And none of what I say here should be taken as any sort of refutation of what is written in the Christian Bible. But sometimes people in their zeal to prove what they believe, point to things that aren't there.

ML/NJ

[kosciusko51]

Interesting comment on Isaiah 53. The problem I see is that many Jews will see this passage as ONLY national Israel and not the Messiah, and have denied any connection to Messiah. And Christians see this as ONLY Christ, and not the Israel.

As to the Jewish denial of Isaiah 53 as referring to Jesus, I would say this is described by Paul in Romans 11:8 "Just as it is written, 'GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY.'" - A reference to Deuteronomy 29:4 describing the unbelief of the Jews during their time in the wilderness.

[right way right]

I make a humble recognition of my ignorance and seek knowledge upon the discovery of it, then your response exposes your true heart motive.
You do not wish to help me.

Instead you wish to accuse and condemn, you are only a viper
who comes here to gain notoriety among other vipers.

That is why I would not normally get involved in these fruitless religion threads which have become so common place here at Free Republic.

Jesus Christ knows your motives just as well as mine.

[kosciusko51]

I find it odd that you respond to an off-handed statement, rather than direct a comment towards the translation and use of the word by the Septuagint (not assumed to be inspired, of course) and by Matthew (inspired, at least in the Christian tradition).

Also, while the English translations are imperfect, I would not say that they are improper, especially when it comes to Isaiah 7:14.

[ml/nj]

I find it odd that you respond to an off-handed statement

Please! I didn't even address you.

You may think that the comment I did respond to was "off-handed" (with whatever derogatory meaning you imply) but I thought it was a reasonable question and I tried to present an informed answer. My guess is that in forming that answer I consulted more books than you own. (Do you even know who Everett Fox is without Googling?) I really do not know enough Greek to comment upon the translation in the Septuagent. In addition to the Zondervan book I quoted, you might want to have a look at what the New Jerome Bible Commentary (Incredibly scholarly Catholic commentary) has to say about the verse in question, or like Joseph's brothers you can ignore obvious things presented to you in plain sight.

ML/NJ

[Tzfat]

Interesting comment on Isaiah 53. The problem I see is that many Jews will see this passage as ONLY national Israel and not the Messiah, and have denied any connection to Messiah. And Christians see this as ONLY Christ, and not the Israel.

This is why it is wise for Christians to become students of rabbinic writings. They may discover things about the Bible that their theology has blinded them to. At the time of the Reformation, before Luther's blatant anti-Semitism, many seminaries in Europe were starting Talmudic studies because they were amazed at the breadth of understanding rabbinic writings contained.

As for Isaiah 53, Judaism, like Christianity, many times defines itself as "other than." The plain truth is that Christianity so hung its hat on Isaiah 53, that Judaism must answer. Historical Christianity has done the same, denouncing Moses and the Law, to define themselves as other than Judaism.

The reality is that it is not the cherry picking of passages like Isaiah 53 that best speaks of Messiah... but all the TaNaKh itself (Luke 24:27). The problem is that the Hebrew Scriptures are so foreign to Christians (they think of them as stories) - even to Christian scholars - that they cannot see the Messiah in them, while Judaism declares: "All the world exists for Messiah..."

For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words? Jn 5:46-47

[Tzfat]

But sometimes people in their zeal to prove what they believe, point to things that aren't there.

I completely agree. Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 53 are perfect examples of Christians making morons of themselves to prove a point. Denying the PLAIN MEANING, they appear to be grasping at straws.

Better to state that Isaiah 7:14 clearly says ALMA, and that this could be a virgin as the LXX indicates (instead of beating Jews up for not seeing it their way). Likewise, ignoring the plain text of Isaiah 52, where the "servant" is clearly defined as "Israel My servant" and pretending that it does not say this. Rather, admit that the text does in fact say that Isaiah 53 (a continuation of ch 52) is about Israel - which does not preclude it being about Israel's chief representative, Messiah.

[kosciusko51]

First, I thought SeekAndFind's comment was rhetorical. If I am mistaken, I sincerely apologize to SeekAndFind.

Second, both SeekAndFind and I responded to your message. I just thought that you would respond to the clarification/refutation of your comment, as opposed to letting it sit out there unchallenged. My apologies for not thinking otherwise.

Third, I don't know who you are, nor you me, so don't go assuming how large a library I have, what knowledge I have or lack, how many resources I used or did not use, or whether I know who Everett Fox is. None of these items reduce my ability to respond to you. Besides, this seems to be a poor argument from authority debating tactic. You seem to be a better fellow than that.

Fourth, I would like to thank Tzfat for his wise interjection into this discussion.

Since is is getting late, I will end with "Shalom aleichem", "εἰρήνη ὑμῖν", "Pax vobiscum", and "Peace be with you".

[SeekAndFind]

I completely agree. Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 53 are perfect examples of Christians making morons of themselves to prove a point. Denying the PLAIN MEANING, they appear to be grasping at straws.

Here's the question I want to ask -- how has Isaiah 7:14 been TRADITIONALLY understood by Israelites and Jews HUNDREDS OF YEARS before Jesus was born ? Has it been understood simply as a reference to a historical figure in the past, or has there been a tradition of understanding this to also have a double meaning to refer to the future Messiah ?

[Salvation]

Isaiah, Chapter 7, with the footnotes -- Bolded text is my doing

This definitely says "virgin". End of discussion for Catholics!

Isaiah
Chapter 7

1

¹ In the days of Ahaz, king of Judah, son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah, king of Israel, son of Remaliah, went up to attack Jerusalem, but they were not able to conquer it.

2

When word came to the house of David that Aram was encamped in Ephraim, the heart of the king and heart of the people trembled, as the trees of the forest tremble in the wind.

3

² Then the LORD said to Isaiah: Go out to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway of the fuller's field,

4

and say to him: Take care you remain tranquil and do not fear; let not your courage fail before these two stumps of smoldering brands (the blazing anger of Rezin and the Arameans, and of the son of Remaliah),

5

because of the mischief that Aram (Ephraim and the son of Remaliah) plots against you, saying,

6

³ "Let us go up and tear Judah asunder, make it our own by force, and appoint the son of Tabeel king there."

7

Thus says the LORD: This shall not stand, it shall not be!

8

Damascus is the capital of Aram, and Rezin the head of Damascus; Samaria is the capital of Ephraim, and Remaliah's son the head of Samaria.

9

⁴ But within sixty years and five, Ephraim shall be crushed, no longer a nation. Unless your faith is firm you shall not be firm!

10

Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz:

11

⁵ Ask for a sign from the LORD, your God; let it be deep as the nether world, or high as the sky!

12

⁶ But Ahaz answered, "I will not ask! I will not tempt the LORD!"

13

Then he said: Listen, O house of David! Is it not enough for you to weary men, must you also weary my God?

14

⁷ Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

15

⁸ He shall be living on curds and honey by the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good.

16

For before the child learns to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of those two kings whom you dread shall be deserted.

17

The LORD shall bring upon you and your people and your father's house days worse than any since Ephraim seceded from Judah. (This means the king of Assyria.)

18

On that day The LORD shall whistle for the fly that is in the farthest streams of Egypt, and for the bee in the land of Assyria.

19

All of them shall come and settle in the steep ravines and in the rocky clefts, on all thornbushes and in all pastures.

20

⁹ On that day the LORD shall shave with the razor hired from across the River (with the king of Assyria) the head, and the hair between the legs. It shall also shave off the beard.

21

On that day a man shall keep a heifer or a couple of sheep,

22

and from their abundant yield of milk he shall live on curds; curds and honey shall be the food of all who remain in the land.

23

On that day every place where there used to be a thousand vines, worth a thousand pieces of silver, shall be turned to briers and thorns.

24

Men shall go there with bow and arrows; for all the country shall be briers and thorns.

25

For fear of briers and thorns you shall not go upon any mountainside which used to be hoed with the mattock; they shall be grazing land for cattle and shall be trampled upon by sheep.

Table of Contents Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Footnotes

¹ [1] Days of Ahaz: who ruled from 735 to 715 B.C. This attack against Jerusalem by the kings of Aram (Syria) and Israel was occasioned by Ahaz' refusal to enter with them into an anti-Assyrian alliance; cf 2 Kings 16.

² [3] Shear-jashub: this name means "a remnant will return."

³ [6] Son of Tabeel: an adherent of Jerusalem's enemies. His appointment would interrupt the lawful succession from David.

⁴ [9] Within sixty years and five: if the text is correct, its reference is unknown.

⁵ [11] Deep . . . sky: an extraordinary or miraculous sign that would prove God's firm will to save the royal house of David from its oppressors.

⁶ [12] Tempt the LORD: Ahaz expresses in this hypocritical way his preference for depending upon the might of Assyria rather than upon God.

⁷ [14] The sign proposed by Isaiah was concerned with the preservation of Judah in the midst of distress (cf Isaiah 7:15, 17), but more especially with the fulfillment of God's earlier promise to David (2 Sam 7:12-16) in the coming of Immanuel (meaning, "With us is God") as the ideal king (cf Isaiah 9:5-6; 11:1-5). The Church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and 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.

⁸ [15] Curds and honey: the restricted diet of those who remain after devastation has changed the once fertile fields of Judah into grazing land; cf Isaiah 7:21-25.

⁹ [20] God will use the Assyrians from across the River (the Euphrates) as his instrument (razor) to inflict disgrace and suffering upon his people.

[SeekAndFind]

This definitely says "virgin". End of discussion for Catholics!

Are you speaking for all Catholics, or are you speaking for yourself ? I'm sure that there are other Catholics out there who would like to explain to us why VIRGIN is a valid and proper translation of the Hebrew word -- ALMA.

I can understand your point of view when you say the Catholic Church says so, therefore it must be so, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who WANT TO KNOW the reasons for the church saying so.

[Salvation]

Did you read the footnote 7 for Verse 14? almah is the word.

[SeekAndFind]

Did you read the footnote 7 for Verse 14? almah is the word.

Yes I did. The footnote also says that Isaiah might not have understood the full latent force of his own words. This seems to tell me that Isaiah himself was not aware that his immediate near term prophecy was going to apply to a longer term prophecy hundreds of years later.

Well, if this is so, it is very difficult to blame Jews for not accepting this as referring to the Messiah. If Isaiah himself was not aware of its full impact as your footnote says, all we have are Christians who will have to explain to Jews what their own scripture really means.

[SeekAndFind]

First, I thought SeekAndFind's comment was rhetorical. If I am mistaken, I sincerely apologize to SeekAndFind.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply (ex: "Why me?"). Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to think about what the (often obvious) answer to the question must be.

Well, I posed the question because I sincerely want to understand the meaning of Isaiah 7:14. To wit, is VIRGIN a valid translation of the Hebrew word Almah ?

Are Christians VALIDLY using the word to refer to Mary or are they simply applying this verse AFTER-THE-FACT in order to convince Jews ( as in Matthew ) that Jesus is the Messiah ?

[Iscool]

If they do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, then what else do they not believe in?

I can answer that...Some of us don't believe in a pope either...Does that mean we're in trouble???

[right way right]

No, I’m not Catholic.
I just sounded like it when I said that.
What I should have said was virgin birth.

[kosciusko51]

Again, I apologize for misunderstanding.

To reiterate, Christian believe this verse to refer to a virgin because "Almah" can be rendered young woman or virgin. The 70 Jewish scholars between the 3rd and 1st century BC translated the word into Greek as "parthenos", which refers to a virgin. So the first use of virgin for this passage is not Christian, it is Jewish, so it is not just an "after-the-fact" forcing of their theology on the text.

Finally, this passage is used to refer to the mother of the Messiah in Matthew 1:23, using the same text that the Jews were using in the 1st Century AD. Also, Matthew was Jewish, as were most of the authors of the New Testament. Luke was the only Gentile to write a NT book, and he was a companion of Paul.

Therefore, to answer your question: Christians used the word the same way that Jews used the word for several centuries.

[Tzfat]

Here's the question I want to ask -- how has Isaiah 7:14 been TRADITIONALLY understood by Israelites and Jews HUNDREDS OF YEARS before Jesus was born ?

Ahh. A very good question, and one that recognizes that the starting point for discussion has to predate the rise of Christianity.

The eariest "commentary" on TaNaKh are Targums. The earliest is late First Century. By then Christianity understanding of Isaiah 7:14 was well publicized (as well as its tendancy toward belligerence, see Martyr's "Dialog With Trypho the Jew").

This is where the "intertestament" works are so valuable. Sadly, they are as unacceptable to Jewish ears as the LXX. If you want the Jewish understanding of Isaiah 7:14, you already have it in the LXX. It was about a miraculous birth. Why? Because that is a very Jewish thing. Isaac, Jacob, Hannah, etc.

Consider this: if the Almighty had wanted to arm Christians with "definitive proof" in order to beat up Jews, He would not have had Isaiah write the word ALMA. But He did. So what conclusion does that bring to you?