IS "VIRGIN" THE CORRECT TRANSLATION OF ISAIAH 7:14?

Knowing Scripture ^ | 12/30/2017 | Daniel Hoffman

[SeekAndFind]

In an article well worth reading, the late Christopher Hitchens makes the common claim—somewhat in passing—that the term “virgin” as found in most English translations of Isaiah 7:14 is wrong or, at best, misleading. In the ESV that verse reads:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The claim that Hitchens and others make is that the Hebrew word behind “virgin” (עַלְמָה alma) in this text simply means “young woman.” The implication is that nothing miraculous is being promised, and that therefore, universal Christian tradition regarding the virgin birth of Christ is based fundamentally on an illegitimate reading of the Old Testament Scripture.

Is that the case? What does the Hebrew text really imply? Is Matthew the Evangelist wrong to see Jesus’ virgin birth as the fulfillment of God’s promise in Isaiah? Does our faith regarding Jesus’ miraculous conception rest ultimately on the translation of that particular word anyway?

God’s Word to Ahaz

In Isaiah chapter 7, King Ahaz of Judah is scared. The massive Assyrian Empire in the northeast is beginning to assert itself in the coastal regions, making vassals of as many smaller states as it can. Assyria has both Israel and Judah in its sights, and these nations—and others—have to decide whether to submit to Assyrian rule and crushing tribute payments, or whether to try and maintain their independence. The latter option was a move which, if unsuccessful, could result in your head on a spike if you were lucky. This is the course that Israel in the north and Syria have chosen, and now together they are laying siege to Jerusalem, the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah. It is not entirely clear whether they are trying to pressure Ahaz into joining their anti-Assyrian coalition, or whether they suspect that Ahaz already has pro-Assyrian sympathies and are trying to take Judah out as a potential threat. In any case, they are outside Jerusalem laying siege.

That is the situation, and it is into this political minefield that Isaiah is sent with a word from the Lord for Ahaz. The message is, “Watch yourself, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands” (7:4). The prophet’s counsel was to bow neither to Assyria nor to the northern coalition, but to wait for the Lord’s salvation. Yahweh was commanding quiet faith as Judah’s foreign policy. To help strengthen Ahaz’s wavering trust, the Lord even offers a sign, which Ahaz refuses under a cloak of false piety: “I will not ask, and I will not put Yahweh to the test” (7:12). The accounts in II Kings and II Chronicles present Ahaz as a profoundly wicked man, willing to sell his status as the Davidic and messianic son of God in order to instead be a son to the Assyrian king. His refusal of the offered sign therefore is not sincere, and that’s confirmed by the fact that his refusal is met with rebuke:

And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:13-14).

So we have the Lord promising as a sign to Ahaz that “the virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” The Gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus’ conception by the virgin Mary is the fulfillment of this promise, citing Isaiah’s prophecy explicitly (Matthew 1:23). Unbelieving scholars of course do not take it for granted that Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah is valid. Being anti-supernaturalists, they maintain that Jesus was born like anyone else, with a human mother and father, that his virgin conception was a later legendary embellishment, and that Matthew the Evangelist (who they doubt was Matthew anyway) plucked out Isaiah’s prophecy as a way of giving scriptural authority to the legend. Unfortunately for “Matthew,” these scholars will say, the Hebrew text of Isaiah only says that a “young woman” would have a child. That is the first argument: That the Hebrew alma does not mean “virgin.” But in addition, secondly, it is pointed out that the Lord offers this sign to Ahaz, but Jesus would not be born for another 700+ years, so it is supposed that it would not make any historical/contextual sense for the baby Jesus to be the sign.

Those then are the things we need to examine: 1) Did Isaiah really speak of a virgin, or simply of a young woman? 2) How could the birth of Christ serve as a sign to Ahaz?

Alma: Virgin or Young Woman?

Is Isaiah really speaking of a virgin conception? It is often argued that if Isaiah meant “virgin,” he would have used the Hebrew word betula (בְּתוּלָ֕ה). The word betula occurs 50x in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does clearly refer to a virgin, for example:

If a man seduces a [betula] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for [betulot, plural] (Exodus 22:16).

In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example:

And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12).

If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant. But a more telling and illuminating case occurs in Genesis 24, because both betula and alma are used, and so more direct comparison is possible. Abraham’s servant has gone to find a wife for Isaac, and while sitting at a well he sees Rebekah. Genesis 24:16 says,

The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a [betula] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up.

Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says,

I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…”

Here alma seems to assume the virgin condition that betula does not. It is a summary term for Rebekah’s status. Alma is a less common word, occurring only 9x in the Old Testament, and granted, in a few of those cases the context gives no clue one way or the other whether a virgin is in view (e.g., “The singers in front, the musicians last, between them [almot, plural] playing tambourines” – Psalm 68:25). But when the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines. One scholar, Alec Motyer, sums up this linguistic evidence this way:

There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. 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.

Added to this is the fact that the Greek Old Testament (which Matthew quotes in his gospel) translates alma with the Greek word parthenos (παρθένος), which does mean “virgin.” So the pre-New Testament translators of the Old Testament understood alma to mean virgin, at least in this instance, and they certainly had no theological agenda regarding Jesus. R.T. France, a bit more reticent than Motyer and saying that alma “does not explicitly mean ‘virgin,’” still acknowledges that the context in Isaiah “suggests something other than a normal childbirth within marriage,” and he assumes that it was on that basis that the Greek translators of the Old Testament rendered the word as parthenos—“virgin.” The truth then appears to be that betula and alma are both words that can translate as virgin if the context points in that direction, even if virgin is neither word’s technical meaning. It should be remembered as well that in Ancient Near East culture any girl who was unmarried would be expected and assumed to be a virgin.

So we may conclude that Isaiah’s language is not as unambiguous as we might like, but that “virgin” is a perfectly fair and even probable translation. In addition, it ought to be said that however open to interpretation Isaiah’s original statement may be, Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth is certainly clear enough. Believers will of course accept Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah as inspired by the Spirit and therefore valid, but in any case the historical fact of the virgin birth does not ultimately depend on the precise meaning of alma. Luke, who is especially acting as a reporter of history, also recounts the virgin conception, and never cites Isaiah’s prophecy. So testimony to the virgin birth can stand quite apart from Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah, flawed or not.

But now we need to address another issue: If Isaiah indeed foresaw and spoke concerning the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary, how could this serve as a sign for Ahaz who died centuries before it would come to pass?

The Lord Himself Will Give You a Sign

A second reason why skeptics will deny the virgin birth as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy is that it does not seem to work as a “sign” for Ahaz. King Ahaz would be dead long before Jesus was born.

But hold up. First, the Lord offers a sign to Ahaz that he would defend Jerusalem, but Ahaz rebelliously refused it. In reply, the prophet addresses not Ahaz personally but the house of David: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign . . .” (Isaiah 7:13-14). In Hebrew, the you’s in this passage are plural. So the proper recipients of the sign are a broader category than Ahaz personally. The promise is made to the entire royal house as such.

Second, according to Isaiah 7:15-16, by the time the child spoken of in the sign grows up, the threat that Ahaz faces will be in some sense over with. “For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted” (v. 16).[1] It is the case that when Jesus was born, Assyria was long gone as an empire, the northern kingdom of Israel was gone, and the kingdom of Syria as well was simply a Roman province. The fulfillment might therefore have been further off in the future than Ahaz or even Isaiah realized, but the explicit terms of the promise were still met in Jesus’ birth.

Third, if the sign does in fact refer to a normal (non-virgin) birth which Ahaz would see, the question arises: What is the sign quality in that? A young woman will have a baby. So? Children are born all the time. On the other hand, if Isaiah did speak of a virgin birth, but it was one that was to take place during Ahaz’s lifetime (as some actually suppose), why was the fulfillment of the sign never recorded? God had offered a sign as “deep as Sheol or high as heaven” (v. 11), but when it came to pass it was apparently so undramatic that it wasn’t worth mentioning? That seems unlikely.

The reality is that as we read on in Isaiah, we hear more in the very near context about a child being born, a son being given, who would bear the government on his shoulder and be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (9:6), and this was to be a royal son of the house of David, whose rule would have no end (9:7). In chapter 11 we again hear about a “shoot from the stump of Jesse.” The Lord promised a sign to the house of David, a virgin bearing a son, who would represent the presence of God with his people—God with us.[2] Isaiah 7:14 does not stand in isolation, but must be read in light of Isaiah’s broader outlook. The whole scenario and context points to something quite special which may indeed lay beyond the horizon of Ahaz.

Ahaz and his house would have no royal power when this sign came to fulfillment. Because of Ahaz’s capitulation to Assyria, Judah would become a puppet-state and hardly ever again be a fully independent power, but would be subject to foreign empires in one way or another even until the time of Christ. As Motyer puts it, “Because of [Ahaz’s] unbelief the promised Messiah would be born into poverty, heir to a meaningless throne in a conquered land.” In this regard, the sign of the virgin birth functions partly as a word of judgment: Immanuel would have no human father, and thus Ahaz and his successors would not father the royal Savior in a physical sense. The virgin birth implies a broader judgment than this though: It is a judgment on human nature. Not human nature as such or as created, but simply on human nature as corrupt in Adam. The rebuke on Ahaz is thus ultimately turned into a blessing, as the child born of the virgin would mean the birth of a new Adam, ultimately saving not only Israel but offering a fresh start to the whole of humanity.

---

[1] I quoted the ESV here, but this may not actually be the best translation. Allan Harman in his commentary suggests the rendering: “For before the boy will refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you [Ahaz] are tearing apart [by your disastrous policies] will be forsaken of her two kings.” This seems to fit the Hebrew better, and Harman implies that the “land” refers collectively to the land of promise, Israel and Judah together. The two kings would then be Ahaz himself and Pekah the king of Israel. That also fits the allusion in v. 17 to the time that the kingdom was divided. Alternatively, it might be that the “land” here is just Judah, and her two kings are Ahaz and Yahweh – who will indeed both forsake her before Immanuel grows up. On either translation, the point about Immanuel growing up after these events still stands.

[2] On the theme of Immanuel in the gospel of Matthew, and how the gospel uses this identification of Jesus in chapter 1 to underline Jesus’ divine identity, see the chapter on Matthew in Richard Hays’ new book Reading Backwards.

[Still Thinking]

That’s going to make confusing the angel’s visit to Mary’s confused and suspicious fiance to tell him it was still OK to marry her and that the child was from God.

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

Yes it is, `almah,
Search for 05959 in KJV

feminine of 5958;

a lass (as veiled or private):—damsel, maid, virgin.

[left that other site]

One of the most profound witnesses to the true meaning of “alma” is the word chosen by the very orthodox and learned Jewish scholars of the Septuagint, when they translated the Scriptures into Greek, making them accessible to the common people and even to gentiles.

The Greek word they used was “parthenos” which does not have a double meaning, but means VIRGIN.

It is the root word for “Parthenon” which was a temple to a virgin goddess, and means what it means.

many of the Old testament quotes in the New testament are actually from the Septuagint, and it was accepted as the word of God.

[D Rider]

Mathew quotes the Septuagint (Greek) version of Isaiah which uses the word parthenos, translated virgin. It appears that the top seventy Jewish scholars three centuries before Christ thought that almah should be translated to a word that only refers to a virgin. So I think I'll stick with that.

[D Rider]

Beat me to it.

[Phinneous]

Septuagint was only on the Five Books of Moses.

[Getready]

Thwnks for the post...exegesis of scripture is more complex than many prople appreciate..

[D Rider]

"The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books."

to quote just one source.

[Getready]

I read that it started out that way...but progressed to include most of the Hebrew canon with some variable additions and subtractions

[D Rider]

Also, in Genesis, the LXX uses parthenos for almah in regards to Rebbecca.

[Phinneous]

Have another source. The Torah (5 Books...) is a distinct translation from the latter 23 books (38 or something like that for Christians)

 

<br>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint

 

"Despite the tradition that it was perfectly translated, there are large differences in style and usage between the Septuagint’s translation of the Torah and its translations of the later books in the Old Testament."

 

There are so many glaring errors between the undisputed Hebrew original, believed holy and perfect by both religions, that to not bother to learn Hebrew and study it for yourself is a spiritual crime. Why rely on Thous and Yees, etc? Learn what VaYiKRaH means for yourself. Study the Strong's (or other) concordance of the words in Isaiah. See the blatent misinterpretations, changing past events into "future prophecy." [of course sourcing Jesus....]

 

Brothers and sisters who truly want to serve G-d, study His scripture for yourselves. Ask your pastor if he can help you. If he can't, or won't (or particularly if he forbids you) why not listen to a scholar who knows the Old Testament and New backwards and forwards?

 

If you think to yourself, "Eh, the Jew is trying to trick me," think. What do I have to trick you with?

 

Why in the original Hebrew is the word "VaYiKRa" (Concordance: way·yiq·r&#257;) translated differently only in Isaiah 9:6? Whereas elsewhere in Isaiah, and everywhere in the entire Hebrew Bible it means "he read/cried out(vocally)/called" Past tense. But in Isaiah 9:6 it is rendered into future tense?

 

Folks, you have to study scripture in the original Hebrew, G-d's very own language, with a competent scholar.

 

Or, since you have thousands of sects that won't step into each other's churches anyway, take it from a Jew. Listen to one class on the matter. Show it to your study group. Find the trick. You'll have stronger faith if you can stump the rabbi, right?

 

Yishaiahu (AKA Isaiah) chapter 7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt7_issYmWo&t=129s&ab_channel=ToviaSinger

Yishaiahu (AKA Isaiah) chapter 9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDzVYKDD4N8&ab_channel=ToviaSinger

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhymoqLR2EQ&ab_channel=ToviaSinger

 

Don't go partying like a pagan Roman tonight. Study scripture. Give a listen. The people who dwelt in darkness have seen a great light. Learn G-d's Bible.

[Tao Yin]

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, [a young woman] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

If it's a sign, what's the sign? Nothing special about a young woman giving birth. Nothing special about a mother naming a child. Doesn't pass the smell test. How can the "Lord himself" give a sign if nothing special is promised?

[D Rider]

In any case all agree that the LXX was completed and that includes the Law, Prophets and Apocrypha by 132BCE. Which is, of course, the point.

[D Rider]

Also, so we do not loose sight of why a virgin birth was required, it was because of the blood curse God placed on Jeconiah and the royal line.

[Phinneous]

Negative, the point is alma means young woman. Everything else is a contortion. And you can’t pun it on the sanctioned 5 Books translation.

[jjotto]

We’ve no idea if the Christian Septuagint was ‘completed’, as there are no existing copies from near its date of supposed composition.

[D Rider]

Argue what you want. The messiah must be a son of David. The Royal Line is cursed and none of that line can sit on Davids throne.

Since you are Jewish go to JewsforJesus website, they have a detailed explanation of this and why the virgin birth.

Also, if "a young woman is to bear a son" is a sign to Hezekiah, he should have asked for a refund. Not much of a sign really.

[Wuli]

1.

"In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example:"

"And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12)."

"If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant."

This argument uses a modern assumption of the appropriate manner of speaking, as if no one in the generation from whom the scripture comes would have referred to one young female as both a virgin, and further identified without that label but specifically as a young female who has not "known a man". Anyone reading the scriptures in either Aramaic or Greek would admit no such assumptions about appropriate manner of speaking can be assumed, particularly not on standard modern terms.

2.

"Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says,"

"I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…”

Again an error of translation, or a an intentional error is made, for while an alma, may or may not refer to a virgin, as a betula clearly does, the difference between the two is not with respect to virginity but to puberty, as an alma always refers to a "maiden", a young woman of child-bearing age, a betula - virgin, may not necessarily be of child-bearing age.

And, again, in expressions of the generation from which the scripture comes, there is no mistake in one phrase to refer to a young woman (when first seen) as a betula (virgin) and in another refer to her as an alma (young woman of child-bearing age).

[ravenwolf]

It makes no difference, maiden means not been there before, maiden voyage or first voyage, Mary was a virgin.y