Isaiah 7:14

[Spud]

The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 came up on the Matthew thread. Over Christmas, I came across this video by two Israeli Christians discussing whether or not Isaiah was referring just to a young woman or to a virgin. They used Isaiah 54:4-5 as evidence that the word almah means an adolescent woman, who is unmarried, as implied by the parallelism in verses 4-5, which I've indicated using green and blue highlights:
1Sing, O barren one, who did not bear;
break forth into singing and cry aloud,
you who have not been in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than the children of her who is married,” says the Lord.
2“Enlarge the place of your tent,
and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out;
do not hold back; lengthen your cords
and strengthen your stakes.
3For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left,
and your offspring will possess the nations
and will people the desolate cities.
4Fear not, for you will not be ashamed;
be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced;
for you will forget the shame of your youth (alumayik),
and the reproach of your widowhood (almenutayik) you will remember no more.
5For your Maker is your husband,
the Lord of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.

The shame of her youth is remedied by God becoming her husband, and the reproach of her widowhood is remedied by God becoming her redeemer. These have in common the lack of a husband. This could indicate that the word almah carries the meaning of being an unmarried young woman, and by implication given the Hebrew culture, a virgin.
As pointed out in the comments, verse 1 refers to a woman who is sterile, not an unmarried woman. Does this influence the meaning of verses 4 and 5? The thought seems to jump from sterility (v1) to lack of a husband (v4-5)?

[Dicky Underpants]

The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 came up on the Matthew thread. Over Christmas, I came across this video by two Israeli Christians discussing whether or not Isaiah was referring just to a young woman or to a virgin. They used Isaiah 54:4-5 as evidence that the word almah means an adolescent woman, who is unmarried, as implied by the parallelism in verses 4-5, which I've indicated using green and blue highlights:
1Sing, O barren one, who did not bear;
break forth into singing and cry aloud,
you who have not been in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than the children of her who is married,” says the Lord.
2“Enlarge the place of your tent,
and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out;
do not hold back; lengthen your cords
and strengthen your stakes.
3For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left,
and your offspring will possess the nations
and will people the desolate cities.
4Fear not, for you will not be ashamed;
be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced;
for you will forget the shame of your youth (alumayik),
and the reproach of your widowhood (almenutayik) you will remember no more.
5For your Maker is your husband,
the Lord of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.

The shame of her youth is remedied by God becoming her husband, and the reproach of her widowhood is remedied by God becoming her redeemer. These have in common the lack of a husband. This could indicate that the word almah carries the meaning of being an unmarried young woman, and by implication given the Hebrew culture, a virgin.
As pointed out in the comments, verse 1 refers to a woman who is sterile, not an unmarried woman. Does this influence the meaning of verses 4 and 5? The thought seems to jump from sterility (v1) to lack of a husband (v4-5)?

As it stands, that prophecy could well apply to the conception of John the Baptist ( who is apparently considered more important than Jesus in certain cultures)
My tongue is somewhat in my cheek.

[Maeght]

Or Isiah was predicting for the King of Israel that his enemies who were then besieging Jerusalem would be dispersed before the child of a woman currently pregnant learns to know the difference between good and bad.

[jeremyp]

As it stands, that prophecy could well apply to the conception of John the Baptist ( who is apparently considered more important than Jesus in certain cultures)

I know you are joking a little but it couldn't refer to John the Baptist since it is not a prophecy about the birth of a child at all. It's actually a prophecy about the fate of King Ahaz's enemies and the birth and development of the child is merely a means to put a time scale to it.

This is actually a pretty strong argument against Spud's interpretation. If "virgin" is meant, the time scale requires a miracle to occur i.e.e never. It's would be like the difference between "Spurs will win the Premier League when I learn to milk this cow" and "Spurs will win the Premier League when I learn to milk this bull". The latter says it is never going to happen.

[Dicky Underpants]

I know you are joking a little but it couldn't refer to John the Baptist since it is not a prophecy about the birth of a child at all. It's actually a prophecy about the fate of King Ahaz's enemies and the birth and development of the child is merely a means to put a time scale to it.

This is actually a pretty strong argument against Spud's interpretation. If "virgin" is meant, the time scale requires a miracle to occur i.e.e never. It's would be like the difference between "Spurs will when the Premier League when I learn to milk this cow" and "Spurs will when the Premier League when I learn to milk this bull". The latter says it is never going to happen.

Bit befuddled here. What you and Maeght say is certainly true of Isaiah 7:14. I was referring to the verses Spud brings in support from chapter 54, with its specific reference to a barren woman. No idea whether this has any specific reference to contemporary events then at all, or whether it's something more generalised, such as you often find in Isaiah, such as the famous text about "The Mountain of the Lord". Now there's a pious hope, considering the shit the world's in now.

[Maeght]

Bit befuddled here. What you and Maeght say is certainly true of Isaiah 7:14. I was referring to the verses Spud brings in support from chapter 54, with its specific reference to a barren woman. No idea whether this has any specific reference to contemporary events then at all, or whether it's something more generalised, such as you often find in Isaiah, such as the famous text about "The Mountain of the Lord". Now there's a pious hope, considering the shit the world's in now.

The young woman/virgin part relates to Isaiah 7:14 doesn't it? Wasn't really sure what point Spud was trying to make (my fault probably) but essentially if Isaiah is talking about something other than Jesus, does it really matter?

[Dicky Underpants]

The young woman/virgin part relates to Isaiah 7:14 doesn't it? Wasn't really sure what point Spud was trying to make (my fault probably) but essentially if Isaiah is talking about something other than Jesus, does it really matter?

Yup, that's certainly true. And it certainly don't matter. Following fundamentalists down rabbit holes can be dangerous.

[jeremyp]

The young woman/virgin part relates to Isaiah 7:14 doesn't it? Wasn't really sure what point Spud was trying to make (my fault probably) but essentially if Isaiah is talking about something other than Jesus, does it really matter?

Spud is trying to construct an argument that the word used in Isaiah 7:14 is (or, at least, could be) "virgin". He thinks that arguing that something is possible is equivalent to arguing it is probable. It's a standard fundamentalist tactic. You look at the opposing argument and focus on a bit you think you can refute and then, if you do refute it, you triumphantly call the whole argument refuted.

It's basically taking a statement composed of lots of "ors" and treating it as if it is lots of "ands". For example, Spud asserts that Isaiah 7:14 is a Merssianic prophecy and that Jesus fulfilled it. In response, I make the following points:

• The word used in Isaiah is not "virgin"
• The prophecy is not a Messianic prophecy
• Matthew^* could have read the prophecy and written his story to pretend it had been fulfilled

Spud assumes that all of these must be true for the refutation to work and therefore concentrates on what he perceives to be the easiest point to overturn my argument. Whereas, in reality, only one pf my points needs to be true.

In fact, the observation that Matthew knew Isaiah destroys any argument that prophecies of Isaiah fulfilled by Jesus prove Jesus is the Messiah because Matthew could obviously have made up the fulfilment.

^*By "Matthew" I mean the author of the eponymous gospel, not the disciple and apostle.

[Spud]

Spud is trying to construct an argument that the word used in Isaiah 7:14 is (or, at least, could be) "virgin".

Actually I was arguing that as well as being a young woman, an almah has never been married.

[Maeght]

Actually I was arguing that as well as being a young woman, an almah has never been married.

To what end?

[Spud]

To what end?

It would demonstrate that she is a virgin.  Not the same as saying that the word means a virgin.

[Maeght]

It would demonstrate that she is a virgin.  Not the same as saying that the word means a virgin.

The she in Isaiah is currently pregnant so not a virgin.

[Gordon]

It would demonstrate that she is a virgin.  Not the same as saying that the word means a virgin.

I take it that you do realise that unmarried women are not necessarily virgins?

[Dicky Underpants]

The she in Isaiah is currently pregnant so not a virgin.

To clarify, for people familiar with the King James translation, there is no main verb in the Hebrew text, only an adjective and a participle. No expert on ancient Hebrew myself, but this would seem to indicate "The pregnant young woman is about  to give birth".
So indeed, not a virgin.

[Maeght]

To me the main point on all this is that in no way is Isaiah a clear prophecy of Jesus's birth. It is all about interpretation (have heard an interpretation that it is a warning to the King of Judah about ignoring God's promise to protect Judah and making military plans - that Isaiah was referring to a Prince about to be born who would accept God's promise and replace him) and trying to link it to the claim (not a fact) of a virgin birth later on. Meanings and uses of words change and translations can alter meanings. All interesting to study but not something to base beliefs on I would say.

[Dicky Underpants]

........

In fact, the observation that Matthew knew Isaiah destroys any argument that prophecies of Isaiah fulfilled by Jesus prove Jesus is the Messiah because Matthew could obviously have made up the fulfilment.

^*By "Matthew" I mean the author of the eponymous gospel, not the disciple and apostle.

Just to add something to that (which is probably quite well known). It's not difficult to see how 'Matthew' could have done this, since Charles Jennens, the librettist of Handel's oratorio Messiah, demonstrates the method exactly. The majority of the first two parts of Messiah are made up of quotes from the Old Testament which purport to refer the coming incarnation, birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The second part in fact, while starting with a brief quote from John "Behold the Lamb of God...", switches back to the Old Testament and tells the story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection using quotes entirely from there. While it is possible that the writers of the synoptics may have been aware of a few oral traditions relating to the life of the historical Jesus, and found OT texts to match, it seems to me very likely that Mark, and then Matthew and Luke used the appropriate OT texts and wove a narrative out of them.
I don't know if Mark uses only some of the texts which Jennens centuries later cites, and Matthew adds a few more, or whether they both use all the same ones. I may be nerdy enough to find out.

Obviously Mark doesn't refer to any birth narratives.

[Maeght]

Just to add something to that (which is probably quite well known). It's not difficult to see how 'Matthew' could have done this, since Charles Jennens, the librettist of Handel's oratorio Messiah, demonstrates the method exactly. The majority of the first two parts of Messiah are made up of quotes from the Old Testament which purport to refer the coming incarnation, birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The second part in fact, while starting with a brief quote from John "Behold the Lamb of God...", switches back to the Old Testament and tells the story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection using quotes entirely from there. While it is possible that the writers of the synoptics may have been aware of a few oral traditions relating to the life of the historical Jesus, and found OT texts to match, it seems to me very likely that Mark, and then Matthew and Luke used the appropriate OT texts and wove a narrative out of them.
I don't know if Mark uses only some of the texts which Jennens centuries later cites, and Matthew adds a few more, or whether they both use all the same ones. I may be nerdy enough to find out.

Obviously Mark doesn't refer to any birth narratives.

Yep.

[jeremyp]

Just to add something to that (which is probably quite well known). It's not difficult to see how 'Matthew' could have done this, since Charles Jennens, the librettist of Handel's oratorio Messiah, demonstrates the method exactly. The majority of the first two parts of Messiah are made up of quotes from the Old Testament which purport to refer the coming incarnation, birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The second part in fact, while starting with a brief quote from John "Behold the Lamb of God...", switches back to the Old Testament and tells the story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection using quotes entirely from there. While it is possible that the writers of the synoptics may have been aware of a few oral traditions relating to the life of the historical Jesus, and found OT texts to match, it seems to me very likely that Mark, and then Matthew and Luke used the appropriate OT texts and wove a narrative out of them.
I don't know if Mark uses only some of the texts which Jennens centuries later cites, and Matthew adds a few more, or whether they both use all the same ones. I may be nerdy enough to find out.

Obviously Mark doesn't refer to any birth narratives.

It's really difficult to say. The particular OT quotations chosen may have been selected because they somehow matched the details people thought they knew about Jesus or the narrative may have been fabricated by weaving the OT quotations together. I think a bit of both is going on.

I lean towards the former because some of the so called Messianic prophecies really do not look like Messianic prophecies when you read them in context. This one, for example: if I was trawling through Isaiah (in the Septuagint) looking for Messianic prophecies, I would not look at 7:14 unless I already had a miraculous birth in mind.

On the other hand, the being born in Bethlehem part is something that Matthew and Luke probably picked out and then wove their narratives around because they are both pretty unconvincing explanations as to how a native of Nazareth got to be born in Bethlehem.

[Spud]

I take it that you do realise that unmarried women are not necessarily virgins?

Yes, but if there was premarital sexual activity, it's odd that the text doesn't mention it. Given that Isaiah offered Ahaz a miraculous sign, it would be reasonable to interpret the pregnancy as miraculous.

[Maeght]

Yes, but if there was premarital sexual activity, it's odd that the text doesn't mention it. Given that Isaiah offered Ahaz a miraculous sign, it would be reasonable to interpret the pregnancy as miraculous.

Not at all.

[Spud]

Furthermore, Gill's commentary shows that the son born to the maiden could not have been a son of Ahaz, nor of Isaiah. We are told nothing of Immanuel's identity other than that the land of Judah is his land (Isaiah 8:8 )

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; this is not to be understood of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age; in like manner, Aben Ezra and Kimchi object to it; and besides, his mother could not be called a "virgin": and for the same reason it cannot be understood of any other son of his either by his wife, as Kimchi thinks, or by some young woman; moreover, no other son of his was ever lord of Judea, as this Immanuel is represented to be, in Isaiah 8:8 nor can it be interpreted of Isaiah's wife and son, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi think; since the prophet could never call her a "virgin", who had bore him children, one of which was now with him; nor indeed a "young woman", but rather "the prophetess", as in Isaiah 8:3 nor was any son of his king of Judah, as this appears to be, in the place before cited: but the Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned

[Spud]

Not at all.

So you would say that the pregnant maiden represents any maiden who happens to be pregnant at the time?

[Maeght]

So you would say that the pregnant maiden represents any maiden who happens to be pregnant at the time?

Quite possibly, yes. The reference to the maiden may simply be putting a timescale on predicted events. An alternative interpretation I have seen is that the child referred to is a Prince fathered by Ahaz that Isaiah is predicting will take over from him. In what way would the maiden's status be relevant to a sign from Isiah to Ahaz?

Have you read the Wikipedia page on Immanuel which talks about the context and interpretations?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel

[Spud]

Quite possibly, yes. The reference to the maiden may simply be putting a timescale on predicted events.

Gill says this timescale is made using shear jashub, Isaiah's son who he has with him.

An alternative interpretation I have seen is that the child referred to is a Prince fathered by Ahaz that Isaiah is predicting will take over from him. In what way would the maiden's status be relevant to a sign from Isiah to Ahaz?

Her being a pregnant virgin would be a sign that the prophecy about Rezin and Pekah is from God. child has a divine origin.
Even if the fulfillment happens a long time in the future, shows that the Davidic dynasty will continue until the Messiah is born, so Ahaz doesn't need to worry because his descendents will continue.

Have you read the Wikipedia page on Immanuel which talks about the context and interpretations?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel

I did glance at it, but it looked quite complicated. My last post but one quoted Gill on why Immanuel can't be a son of Ahaz.

[Gordon]

Her being a pregnant virgin indicates that the child has a divine origin.

Congratulations Spud - that is certainly in the top ten of examples of mindless theobollocks.