Copyrighted 2000 by Harold R. Holmyard

Endnotes

Despite many excellent studies of Isaiah 7:14 in recent years, the connection between its meaning for Ahaz and its meaning in the announcement of Christ's birth (Matt 1:23) remains loose for many, who either do not see how Isa 7:14 functioned in its context, or who regard Matt 1:23 as selecting Isa 7:14 for the appropriateness of its words rather than as genuine prophecy.

The purpose of this paper is to show that the firmness of this connection resides in Isaiah's prophecies, particularly in the association between the son named "God is with us" in 7:14 and the son called "Mighty God" in 9:6. The way that Isaiah associates these two prophecies is by a figurative elongation of the time of Assyrian oppression so that it extends until Messiah's victory. Yet Isaiah 7:1-9:7 is not just about oppression, because the prophet indicates an end to it three times as he considers Israel's circumstances, each time by the image of the son.

A matter-of-fact outline of the topics in Isaiah 7:1-9:7 will facilitate discussion of the links between them that provide unity between 7:14 and 9:6.

A. Isaiah's confrontation of Ahaz (7:1-25).
     1. The threat of Judah's assault by Ephraim and Syria (7:1-6).
     2. God's promise of its failure and the shattering of Ephraim (7:7-11).
     3. A sign to the house of David pertinent to the prophecy of Judah's
          short-term deliverance from Ephraim and Syria (7:14-16).
     4. Prophecy of Assyria's long-term oppression of Judah (7:17-25).
B. A second cycle of prophecies concerning Israel and Assyria (8:1-10).
     1. Prophesied judgment of the northern kingdom through Assyria (8:1-7a).
     2. Prophesied judgment of the southern kingdom through Assyria (8:7b-8).
     3. Prophesied shattering of the nations who attack God's nation (8:9-10).
C. God's protected remnant versus the judged majority (8:11-22).
     1. Different attitudes about whom to fear and whom to help (8:11-15).
     2. Different attitudes about the law and about God (8:16-22).
D. An end to the dark judgment of the nation (9:1-6).
     1. An end to dark judgment for areas even of the northern kingdom (9:1-2).
     2. The blessing of the nation in the overthrow of the oppressors (9:3-5).
     3. The everlasting rule of the Davidic king (9:6-7).

Three Problems and One Solution

Isaiah 7:1-9:7 presents three main problems with which the nation is dealing: political division within the nation, the threat of foreign nations, and poor spiritual standing. The one solution is Israel's embrace of the presence of God.

The first problem relates to the Syro-Ephraimite threat in section A of the outline. God tells Ahaz that the threat will vanish in sixty-five years. As a sign, perhaps in part because the king will not live another sixty-five years, God describes a devastating defeat that will occur to his enemies before a child can be born and discern good and evil. The child's name seems to embody the divine perspective as to why Judah will not suffer defeat by Ephraim and Syria: God is with Judah. Yet the political machinations of Ahaz will complicate the issue by introducing a greater threat; therefore much of God's sign concerns the agent of Ephraim and Syria's defeat.

Section B of the outline continues to depict the gravity of the Assyrian threat; it suggests that Assyria represents all the foreign nations that will oppress Israel. Again, the solution to the problem is that God is with His nation to defeat their enemies. The child introduced in 7:14 reappears as God announces the solution in 8:8-10.

God's solution becomes the basis for exhortations to Isaiah as to how he should handle the third problem, the ungodly character of the nation and the judgment that must inevitably follow (section C of the outline). Section D reverses the judgment by a removal of the ungodliness and consequent oppression. Once more deliverance is through God's presence with the nation. God mediates His presence through a child who is born to reign on David's throne.

Two constant elements in the three problems are foreign domination, mainly by Assyria, together with God's presence to rescue. A third constant element is prophecy concerning a son to be born who has "God" as part of his name. These prophecies appear at three points of victory, or safety, for Israel. Insertion of this prophetic element in Isa 8:1-10 is unexpected and evidently of cryptic significance. A more detailed review of 7:1-9:7 will look at the significance and the direct linkage it provides between 7:14 and 9:6.

Conceptual Unity of 7:1-9:7

The sign of the son in Isa 7:14 would have indicated to Ahaz, who feared overthrow by the kings of Ephraim and Syria (Isa 7:4-6), that in a short time his foes would meet destruction. His own people would survive. Through Isaiah God promised that his fear was empty, for within sixty-five years Ephraim would be too shattered to be a people (7:8). God told Ahaz that failure to believe in Him would bring his downfall, and the Lord requested that Ahaz propose a sign to confirm His word. When Ahaz demurred, God gave the sign of a virgin's son in 7:14 Before a virgin could bear a child and see it old enough to distinguish good from evil, the land of the two kings Ahaz feared would suffer ravaging.

The boy, named "God is with us," ⁽¹⁾ thereafter would eat curds and honey, an apparent indication of Judah's prosperity once its enemies had failed. The boy's name encapsulates the well- grounded faith of his mother that God was with her people, for had not God told Ahaz that the planned overthrow of Judah would not occur (7:7)?  Moreover, the name communicates the familiar covenantal concept that God was with His people Israel.⁽²⁾

Nonetheless, God gave this sign to Ahaz with indignation. After warning Ahaz of the need to believe in God's word or fall, the king promptly refused to believe God when he was invited to request a confirming sign (7:9, 12). Ahaz claimed that he did not want to put the Lord to the test, as though God were trying to trick him. He did not believe that God would deliver him, for he depended on the help of Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, to defeat his foes (2 Kgs 16:7; 2 Chr 28:16). His unbelief is evident in that divine warning about the hired razor of Assyria (Isa 7:20) did not deter him.

The confirming sign of the son actually foretold the victory over the two kings by Tiglath-Pileser at Ahaz's request. When God initially comforted Ahaz with the promise that Pekah and Rezin would not triumph, He implicitly contrasted His own sovereignty with the weakness of the two kings, whom He described as stubs of smoldering firebrands (7:4). Had Ahaz believed in God, God would have found a way to deliver Ahaz so as to keep His word. But Ahaz's refusal to seek a sign foreshadowed his transfer of trust to Tiglath-Pileser. So God gave the sign of short-term deliverance for Judah with indignation, since He had to confirm His initial word of deliverance in 7:7 by predicting the immediate outcome of Ahaz's apostasy.

Since God had predicted Ahaz's downfall for such unbelief (7:9), it was inevitable that there should be more to His sign than success. Especially was this evident in that He accompanied it with a reproach to the house of David for trying the patience of men and now God (7:13). Ahaz's initial success would unleash the king of Assyria on Judah (7:17). This "razor" hired with Judah's tribute money (2 Chr 28:21; 2 Kgs 16:8) would serve to humiliate Judah, going far beyond the intended purpose of Ahaz. Assyria would so strip Judah of its wealth that this agricultural people would return to nomadic pasturing (7:21-25). The delectable child's treat of curds and honey would unfortunately be the only staples available to the entire population in its poverty.

In the larger context of divine indignation and Assyrian ravaging, the name "God is with us" takes on the ominous tone of divine judgment. The Lord says that it is He who will bring the king of Assyria upon Judah (7:17). He will whistle for the foreign invaders to come (7:18). The burden of Isaiah's message to Ahaz is that God will judge Ahaz, his house, and his nation for Ahaz's unbelief. Although some ordinary people in Judah, symbolized by the nameless young mother of 7:14, might retain faith in God, they, too, would suffer. For the king's rejection of God would affect everybody.

Other nations conducted their foreign policy by political intrigue, but Israel was in covenant relation with the Lord of heaven and earth. Because God was with Israel, the king's reliance on Tiglath-Pileser instead of God was a form of idolatry, and later Ezekiel would describe Judah's attraction to Assyria as spiritual adultery (Ezek 16:28; 23:12). Intrigue with Assyria would lead to vassalage, and on to deeper intrigue with Egypt against Assyria. Isaiah later explicitly condemned such reliance upon the arm of flesh rather than God (Isa 31:1-3).

Some have associated the child of 7:14 with that of Isaiah's wife in 8:3, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, or "Swift-booty-speedy-prey." They propose that Isaiah's first wife died after the birth of Shear-jashub. In both 7:14 and 8:3 there is conception, birth of a son who receives a name associated with God, and failure of the child to reach a certain age before the kings of Ephraim and Syria meet defeat. The text, however, is silent about any death of a wife of Isaiah, and the phrase "drew near" in 8:3 could well indicate sexual approach to one already a wife. The fact that Isaiah already had one son suggests a deliberate distinction between the prophetess in 8:3 and the virgin in 7:14. While God names the child in 8:3, Masoretic pointing of 7:14 suggests that the mother names the child there. Through the curds and honey, the child of 7:14 seems related to a Judah reduced to a limited diet; the child of 8:3, on the other hand, has particular association with divine judgment upon Ephraim. Although the name of the child in 7:14 returns in Isa 8:8, it does so in connection with the fate of Judah. The safe course is to regard the two children as different, each having closer linkage with one of the two houses of Israel.

Commentators normally associate "this people" in 8:6 with Judah, viewing the rejoicing over Rezin and the son of Remaliah as glee over Assyria's defeat of these northern enemies. But such a reading seems anachronistic, since the rejoicing is in the present (8:6), while the judgment on the two enemies is the future event predicted in 8:3-4.⁽³⁾ And elsewhere in the Bible the word "rejoicing" (8:6) refers to positive joy, not malicious glee. The equation of "this people" in 8:6 with Judah might seem natural because the Lord warns Isaiah, who lived in Jerusalem, not to follow the way of "this people" (8:11). Yet 8:14 clarifies that in 8:11 the Lord is actually referring to both houses of Israel. Consequently, "this people" in 8:6 may refer particularly to the northern house of Israel about which Isaiah has spoken in 8:3-4, since "Samaria" (8:3) would be a natural antecedent.

Then 8:6 would explain why the judgment on Samaria announced in 8:4 was coming. The northern kingdom had rejected the Davidic kingship based in Jerusalem and symbolized in 8:6 by the water of Shiloah (Siloam). This water seems to correspond to an aqueduct near Gihon in Jerusalem where Solomon's coronation occurred (1 Kgs 1:33-34; cf. Neh 3:15). Instead, Samaria rejoiced in Rezin the king of Damascus, and in Pekah, Samaria's usurper king (cf. 2 Kgs 15:25), who had set himself against Judah, the dwelling place of his own brothers and of God's earthly temple.

Judgment was coming upon Ephraim from the mighty river of the Euphrates, symbolizing the king of Assyria. Sadly, the Assyrian assault on Syro-Palestine would not limit itself to the northern areas. In 7:16 God did not specify who would lay waste Ephraim and Syria. But since His next words predicted Assyria's assault of Judah, Ahaz could have easily inferred that Assyria would attack his northern foes as well as himself. The prophecy in 8:3-6 made this fact explicit; Ephraim's doom would be at Assyria's hand. But just as Ahaz directed Assyrian might against Ephraim and then lost control of Assyrian action, so 8:7-8 pictures the waters of the Euphrates overflowing their channels and banks to flood past Ephraim into Judah.

Recurrence of the name "God is with us" in 8:8 pertains to the prophecy of judgment in 7:17-25, since 8:8 restates the earlier prophecy in terms of Assyria flooding Judah nearly to the drowning point. God was with Judah in order to judge it as He would judge Ephraim. But after notifying "God is with us" that Judah would be under water up to the neck, God invites the nations to attack in order to be defeated (8:9-10). Assyria would not ultimately succeed. The nations' defeat spoken of in 8:10 occurs because "God is with us." These words are not a name like the vocative in 8:8, but the proximity of 8:8 and 8:10 associates the child named "God is with us" with the reality of God's presence in order to deliver. So this name associated with judgment in 7:17-25 and 8:8 regains a positive and traditional connotation in 8:10.

Israelite tradition taught that God's presence with Israel brought it victory over its enemies (e.g., Num 14:9). The preparations and plans for war in 8:9-10 resemble those in 7:5-7. Just as in 7:7 God said that the Syro-Ephraimite plan would not "stand," so He asserts that the nations' plan will not "stand" (8:10). As Ephraim would be "shattered" (7:8), so the nations would be "shattered" (8:9). The nameless young woman of 7:14 expressed traditional faith by naming her son "God is with us." Ahaz perverted Israel's future, and thus the connotation of the child's name, by an unbelief that turned God's presence into a vehicle of judgment. But God would not ultimately betray the faith of Israel, recalled in 8:8 by the child's name.⁽⁴⁾ The God who initially promised deliverance from Syria and Ephraim would also deliver Israel from Assyria.

Isaiah parallels the term "nations" in 8:10 with the phrase "all the distant lands." While 8:10 evidently refers to Assyria and its allies, it does not explicitly name them. This conclusion of the prophecy may generalize God's intent to deliver Judah from Assyria to an intent to deliver Israel from all foreign foes because of His covenant relationship with it (cf. 14:24-27).

The following prophecy in 8:11-22 admonishes Isaiah in view of the preceding confrontation with Ahaz. Ahaz in his unbelief embodied the worldly spirit of both houses of Israel. Ahaz's fear of Syria and Ephraim drove him to conspire with Assyria against Syria and Ephraim. But Isaiah, who had just heard so powerfully God's intent to protect His nation, was not to call "conspiracy," or a binding together against an enemy, what his fellow Israelites did (8:12). Neither Pekah's league with Rezin nor Ahaz's league with Tiglath-Pileser was of lasting value. Isaiah was to fear neither Syria and Ephraim, whom Ahaz and all Judah feared (7:2), nor the Assyrians whom Ephraim and then Judah would fear. Rather he was to fear God, who would then be a sanctuary to him from all such foes (cf. Ezek 11:16), but who was the ultimate cause of the woes of both Ephraim and Judah. The people's failure to adhere to their covenantal responsibilities, chiefly that of faith in God, would bring the curses of the Mosaic covenant upon them. Their relationship to God, outwardly honored in Judah (1:11-15) and to some extent in Ephraim (e.g., 2 Chr 28:9-13), would be their snare (Isa 8:14).

Isaiah and his sons symbolized the faith of the nation (8:18). Neither Ephraim nor Judah believed the prophet's name, which means "the Lord saves."⁽⁵⁾ The name of the younger son pointed to the destruction of the northern kingdom. The name of the older son, significant for the southern kingdom because God commanded Isaiah to bring this son when he met Ahaz (7:3), means "a remnant shall return" (cf. 10:21). Isaiah, his sons, and his disciples, representing the faithful in Israel as had the virgin mother, would preserve the Law and await the Lord, who was hiding His face from the sinful nation (8:16-17). In contrast, many would consult mediums and spiritists, but this further departure from the Law (8:19-20; Deut 18:10-11) would only compound their problems. Isaiah had described the return of the land to an uncultivated state after the Assyrian invasion (7:21-25). Now he shows the consequences of gnawing hunger (8:21). Rather than repenting, the ungodly react to discipline by cursing God, but the result can only be the darkness of doom (8:22).

By a literary splice Isaiah moves from the "gloom" of Assyrian times to an absolute end of "gloom" for parts of Israel that God had belittled by giving them over to the Assyrians (8:22; 9:1). Isaiah puts the Assyrian times in the past by calling them "the former time" in contrast to a "latter time" when God will transform Israel's conditions. Isaiah's promise of God's honoring Galilee serves a double task. It alludes to land taken by Tiglath-Pileser in his partial annexation of the northern kingdom in about 732 B.C. (7:16; 2 Kgs 15:29), and it prophesies the appearance of Christ. Whereas there has been no dawn (8:21), a light will dawn (9:1). Those who walked in darkness (8:22) will do so no longer (9:2) as they put away their "distress" (8:22: ; 9:1: ).

Isaiah speaks of an enlarged nation experiencing the joy of harvest or plunder (9:3). For God has broken the yoke of their burden, the rod of their foreign oppressors. Liberation will occur through battle "as in the day of Midian's defeat" (9:4; cf. Judges 7-8), after which peace feeds household fires with the weaponry (9:5). Isaiah later uses much the same words of Assyria's defeat (10:26-27). So the wording could suggest that Assyrian oppression lasts from the former to the latter time. However, there is no specific mention of Assyria after 8:7-8; God also uses wording like 9:4 about the end of Babylon's oppression of Israel (14:5). Immediately thereafter He repeats the language of 9:4 with reference to Assyria (14:25), concluding that this is His plan for the whole world (14:26-27). Thus both the Assyrian and Babylonian domination can symbolize the world's dealings with Israel.

The reason for Israel's victory in 9:4 is that "to us a child is born, to us a son is given" (9:6 NIV), whom 9:7 identifies as a Davidic king. "Us" will evidently consist of people like Isaiah who are waiting for God (8:17). Men will call the son "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (9:6 NIV). His peaceful, righteous government from David's throne over his kingdom will increase forever (9:7). The kingdom of this extraordinary Davidic king seems identical with that of the Davidic king in Isaiah 11. The king in Isaiah 11 is central to the establishment of God's rule over the world, and all nations look to him because of his righteous power (11:10; 4-5). The reign in Isaiah 11 also seems to follow the Assyrian oppression (10:24-11:1, 11). Isaiah learned that Babylonian domination of Israel would follow Assyrian oppression (cf. 39:5-8), but he spoke in chapter 9 as though this great Davidic king would put an end to the darkness following Assyrian conflict. Isaiah's wording shows that at points of transition he chose general terms that do not tie the reader to the Assyrian period. An inference arises: oppression like that of the Assyrians will dog the nation of Israel until the Davidic king establishes the everlasting kingdom.

The transition between 8:8 and 8:9 is much like the transition between 8:22 and 9:1. Both preceding contexts depict the desolation that Assyria brings to Israel. Neither 9:1 nor 8:9 mentions Assyria. There is a finality to both deliverances in that the first is "from all the distant lands" (8:9), while the second introduces a Davidic kingdom that never ends. Warfare is a factor in both texts. A child, part of whose name is "God," figures in both passages. In 8:8 and 8:10 the child seems closely related to the cause of victory; in 9:6 the child is the cause of victory.

The contention of this paper is that the son born in 7:14 and mentioned in 8:8 is the same as the son in 9:6. Both 7:14 and 9:6 contain the terms "give," "son," "give birth," and "call his name." The child in both cases has a theophoric name including the element (God). The additional element of "with us" in the first name corresponds to the repeated phrase "to us" in 9:6. The address to the child in 8:8 stimulates curiosity about his identity; does he play a role in Israel's history? This second appearance in 8:8 and 8:10 associates him, if only literarily, with God's victory over the nations that oppress Israel. Because 9:6 actually presents the birth of a son who accomplishes this victory, the reader wonders whether the son of Isa 7:14 and 8:8, 10 pertains directly to the son of 9:6. Since he is the seed of David in 9:6, is he also the seed of David in 7:14, where Isaiah addresses the Davidic king? But if Isaiah spoke of the Messianic king in 7:14, what relevance could the words have had to Ahaz' situation, and how could Ahaz have understood them?

Ahaz did not need to understand all the details, for he was a rejecter of God receiving the sign in 7:14 precisely because of his unbelief (cf. 2 Kgs 16:3-4; 2 Chr 28:19, 22-25). God was frustrated with the house of David. Every Davidic king made some significant error in judgment, although many did good in God's eyes. But the badness of Ahaz prefigured the final sinful kings of this line. Jeremiah 22 expresses similar dissatisfaction with the later house of David. If they did not keep the Law, God would make their palace a ruin (Jer 22:5). Jehoahaz, who did evil, would be in permanent exile (Jer 22:10-12; 2 Kgs 23:32). Jehoiakim merited the burial of a donkey (Jer 22:13-19; 2 Kgs 23:37). God would hand Jehoiachin over to Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 22:25; 2 Kgs 24:9). He would also regard him as if childless, for none of his offspring would prosper, sitting on the throne of Judah or ruling there any longer (Jer 22:30).

Ahaz, by refusing to cooperate with or believe God after receiving a direct revelation of God's intervening love in his time of need, represented the house of David's tendency to turn aside from God. Thus God would give a sign, as Isa 7:13-14 indicates, not just to Ahaz but to the entire house. The virgin would conceive and bear a child.⁽⁶⁾ Ahaz would probably have understood Isaiah to mean that a virgin would marry and then have a child.⁽⁷⁾ God did not mean only that, but for His immediate purposes the point was immaterial. Ahaz would also think of the child being born in his own time. God did not mean that but knew that Ahaz would draw the right conclusion about the timing of defeat for Ephraim and Syria. If such verbal complexity seems to border on deception, Scripture states that with the devious, God will show Himself shrewd (2 Sam 22:27; Ps 18:26), and Ahaz was certainly devious. Moreover, the birth of an actual child at that time, under the God's superintendence (8:1-3), embodied the truth of God's pronouncements to Ahaz.⁽⁸⁾

The child would eat curds and honey, the reduced food supply of foreign oppression, when he could distinguish right from wrong, but the ravaging of Ephraim and Syria would precede that time. The humble circumstances of the Christ child under Roman rule can suit the prophecy. Foreign oppression more or less extended from the time of Assyria to the birth of the Son named God, and Ephraim's fall certainly preceded Jesus' discernment of good and evil as a child. His mother was a young woman of Israel who believed in God, a virgin at His birth. She knew that her son, conceived of the Spirit, born in David's city of Davidic seed, was the Lord of prophecy (Luke 2:11). But the child, since he did not have a Davidic descendant for his birth father, did not descend directly from Ahaz through the kingly line. God was unable to fulfill His plans through the direct regal line, which mirrored the sinfulness of humanity.

Ahaz had refused to believe in God's ability to save Israel, but his unbelief was exactly what put divine deliverance out of reach, causing Israel's fall. God's arm was not too short to save, but Israel's iniquities had separated it from God (Isa 59:1-2). That would always be the case, to some degree, as long as the head of David's family was a representative of fallen mankind. So God would give the house of David a sign that He would deliver Israel from her foes. A virgin would conceive and bear a divine Son. Ultimately only this Son could save Israel, for only He would be free of sin and for this reason able to bear God's government on His shoulders.

Excursus on the woman in Isa 7:14 as a virgin

With in Isa 7:14 the question concerns the sense of a lexeme in ancient Israel. The issue of the signification of this word is a narrow one. The Septuagint was the popular Bible used by Jews at the time of Christ. Not only did the early Church use it, but so did Jews in general. And the Christians used the Septuagint to support Christological theology. S. K. Soderlund writes:

When the Christian Church adopted the LXX as its Bible and began to cite proof texts from it in controversies with the Jews (e.g., in Isa 7:14), the latter were considerably embarrassed and retorted that the LXX was an inaccurate translation (s.v. "Septuagint," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).

Soderland goes on to say that having called the LXX translation bad, the Jews needed another Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The first solution was the translation of Aquila, followed by those of Theodotian and Symmachus. The LXX has for the Hebrew in Isa 7:14, and the sense of seems generally to be "virgin," even if there are cases when it is not. So some ancient Jews apparently understood that way.

A virgin generally was a young woman in ancient Israel, as women were expected to marry; so there is nothing necessarily wrong with "young woman" as a translation in Isa 7:14. Etymologically the word might not need to apply to a virgin. BDB favors the sense "young woman," of someone "ripe sexually; maid or newly married" (BDB, s.v. ).

The NET Bible has the following note on at Isa 7:14:

Traditionally, "virgin." Though the word  can refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun "young man" (1 Sam.17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and is best translated "young woman" (The NET Bible www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm).

This is certainly a good argument, but John N. Oswalt observes that the Ugaritic cognate is used "with reference to a goddess who was assumed to be a perpetual virgin" (The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986] 210-11). Herbert M. Wolf states:

The solution to the problem may lie in the use of "virgin" in Ugaritic literature. . . . there is a passage that says "a virgin will give birth" (tld btlt ["a virgin will give birth"] is parallel to hl glmt tld bn ["behold, a glmt will give birth to a son"; glmt is cognate to ]). In its context the phrase means that a particular virgin would soon be engaged and that after her marriage she would become the mother of a son. This kind of announcement was a blessing on the upcoming marriage (Interpreting Isaiah [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985] 91).

 Delitzsch did not have the Ugaritic material but knew the Aramaic and Syriac forms corresponding to . He still felt that the woman in Isa 7:14 was a virgin. He allowed that the word might refer to a woman recently married (Franz Delitzsch, Isaiah [Commentary on the Old Testament, by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1986] 1:217-20). The Aramaic and Ugaritic young women did not live under the Law, with its expectation of virginity before marriage; so the word could have taken on a connotation in Israel that it did not have in Ugarit. Oswalt notes that the LXX rendering is "inexplicable" unless had overtones of virginity about it (Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39 210).

There are seven uses of in the OT. The LXX uses to translate at Gen 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14. At Exod 2:8, Ps 68:25 (26); Cant 1:3; and 6:8 it uses , which means girl or maiden, of a young, unmarried girl (LSJ, s.v. ). The LXX is different at Prov 30:19. Instead of "man with a maid ," it has "man in  youth ." So the LXX translation of in every instance suggests a virgin. This seems significant.

Next a look at the six other Hebrew texts with argues for the sense virgin. The text seems clear in Gen 24:43. The servant would want a virgin to marry Isaac, and Rebekah was a virgin. In Exod 2:8 Miriam was evidently still living at home and was probably young. In Ps 68:26 these tambourine playing women are probably virgin maidens as in Jer 31:13.

As for in Cant 1:3 and 6:8, the references to give evidence of supporting the signification "virgin" for the word. The numbers in 6:8 seem meaningful. These were apparently Solomon's queens and concubines at a point in time earlier than the number of his wives and concubines given in 1 Kings 11:3. The women who are in 6:8 are evidently the same sort as those in 1:3. If these women are not queens or concubines (6:8), they are probably unmarried women, since it would not be right for other men's wives to be loving Solomon in 1:3, as these women do. Nor would it be right for the king to be desiring other men's wives (6:8). And women were expected to go into marriage as virgins according to the Law.

The women seem to perform the role of a chorus in Song of Solomon. The pronouncement in 1:4b, on the heels of 1:3c and before 1:4c (in the NIV), favors this role in what the author calls a song. These women are apparently the "daughters of Jerusalem" whom the woman addresses elsewhere in the song. The term "daughter of Zion" seems to describe a virgin (Isa 23:12; Jer 14:17; 18:13; 31:13, 21; 46:11; Lam 2:13; cf. Isa 47:1 ["virgin daughter of Babylon"]). The idea may be that they are still daughters and not wives. When the beloved tells the daughters of Jerusalem not to awaken love before it pleases, she counsels them to await God's time for love. One thing that made Solomon's love so satisfying was that his beloved was a wall, or virgin, till the time of marriage (8:8-10).

If the virgins in Canticles form a sort of chorus, then it is helpful to remember that it was the virgins in Israel who were known for their music (Jer 31:13; Ps 68:26). The women in the chorus also resemble the virgins in Ps 45:14, who serve as companions to the princess. See Cant 8:13: "you who dwell in the gardens with friends in attendance." The friends are likely to be the daughters of Jerusalem, the virgins.

The argument from the LXX translation of is significant; so is the contextual probability of the other six instances of referring to virgins. At least we do not see a case, except possibly Isa 7:14, where had to apply to anyone else." In Isa 7:14 the LXX supports the meaning "virgin." These facts need not rule out the translation "young woman" at Isa 7:14, but they provide a good rationale for translating with "virgin" there, too.

The LXX as a whole is not at all an impeccable translation, varying in quality. However, two of the places where the LXX renders with a word indicating virginity are in the Pentateuch, Gen 24:43 and Exod 2:8. S. K. Soderlund's article "Septuagint" in ISBE says about the Pentateuch LXX:

"On the whole the, the Pentateuch represents the best translation unit within the LXX. It is distinguished by a uniformly high level of the vernacular style and by faithfulness to the Hebrew, with rare lapses into literalism" (Soderlund, s.v. "Septuagint," in ISBE).

So the fact that is rendered with words indicating virginity in this part of the LXX leads one to have confidence that such is what meant. The LXX is a Jewish source, perhaps the most ancient that we have outside of the Hebrew OT on the sense of . So it carries considerable weight.

An argument raised against the sense of "virgin"  for in Isa 7:14 claims that Isaiah spoke to a woman who was actually present with himself and King Ahaz. The NET Bible on Isa 7:14 claims:

Heb "the young woman." The words "over here" are added in the translation to bring out the force of the article. It is very likely that Isaiah pointed to a woman who was present at the scene of the prophet's interview with Ahaz. Isaiah's address to the "house of David" and his use of second plural forms suggests other people were present, and his use of the second feminine singular verb form ("you will name") later in the verse is best explained if addressed to a woman who is present (The NET Bible www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm).

The grammatical evidence does not require this interpretation, however. In the Hebrew of the MT it says, and "and she will call." Delitzsch claims that the verb form should not be translated "you will name' but rather "she will name." He states that the pointing makes a distinction between "she calls" and "you call" , and he cites GKC 74g in support. Delitzsch points to similar forms in Gen 33:11; Deut 31:29; Ps 118:23, and Lev 25:21 (Delitzsch, Isaiah 1:216). Regarding the third feminine singular reading "and she will call" in the MT, Oswalt says, "Most of the Greek versions and a number of medieval Hebrew mss. read 'You [masc. sing.] shall . . ,' but the MT has the harder reading and there is no reason to think it corrupt" (Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39 202, n. 2). Motyer likewise finds the form "unusual but not indefensible" (J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah [Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1993] 85, n. 3).

The unpointed text could be read as "you (sing.) will call," and that is the way the LXX took it, with most of the Greek versions and some medieval Hebrew manuscripts. But in the LXX the "you" in the context of verses 13-14 is otherwise plural. The singular "you" could point to an individual like Ahaz or his wife, but it might refer to an indefinite singular "you" such as we sometimes use in the United States for "anyone": "In this world you've got to be sharp." The Psalms use a singular "you" in this generalized way (e.g., Ps 121:3: "he will not let your foot slip"). So does Proverbs (e.g., Prov 14:7: "stay away from a foolish man, for you will not find lips of knowledge").

Perhaps Matthew understood the singular "you" in the LXX in this indefinite way: "you will call his name." Since the third plural is also an indefinite way to refer to unnamed individuals, it would then be a comparable expression. The Hebrew often uses the indefinite third plural as a substitute for the passive.

It seem unsupportable that ("boy") in Isa 7:16 could refer the in 8:4 if we rule out Isaiah's wife as the virgin, since Isaiah's wife had already borne a child, there is no evidence for a second wife, and every instance of in the OT apparently refers to a virgin.

However, the parallel with 8:4 is strong, and the name Immanuel appears in 8:8. Could this suggest that the word bears the sense young woman, even though the other six uses of the word apparently refer to virgins? That would be one way to argue. But the phrase "the young woman" in Isa 7:14 seems a strange designation for Isaiah's wife. How would king Ahaz or anyone in the audience know that Isaiah was referring to his wife? Furthermore, in 7:14 and 8:3 we have two names, with two slightly different connotations. It seems just as probable that we have two infants, and the prophecy could be generic in 7:14, a time-gauging illustration.

God earlier had simply said that Damascus was nothing to fear and that Ephraim would be ruined within sixty-five years (vv. 7-9). Ahaz would probably not be alive in sixty-five years; so the prophecy could sound vague. The sign of 7:14 was God's prophecy of a specific and near time for the defeat of Ephraim and Syria. When it occurred, Ahaz would know that the Lord had prophesied it.

It was not especially significant that a particular woman be the mother. What mattered was the specification of time. If an was a virgin, then some time would be necessary for her to marry, conceive and bear a child, and begin raising it. Before these things could transpire, the prophecy about Ephraim and Syria would find realization.

The definite article with can be generic. The young woman in Israel will do such and such. (She was just the person that an Israelite man would consider deserving of protection, the girl destined to be a mother; the woman is the glory of the man). She will name her child "Immanuel" because of her faith that God is watching over the nation. God will indeed fulfill His prophecy as He said, but the name Immanuel will turn out to carry irony. Due to the failure of the nation's leaders, God will bring Assyria in judgment upon Israel. So having God "with us" is not necessarily a sign of good times ahead.

ENDNOTES

1.  See "Immanuel," in ISBE 2 (1982): 806, for Israelite names similar to
Immanuel.

2.  See the dialogue in Exod 33:15-17. Compare Josh 1:5 and Isa 41:4, 10;
43:2, 5.

3.   If God gave the prophecy in 8:6 years after the prophecy in 8:3-5,
nothing in the text would indicate this fact other than that God spoke
again to Isaiah (8:5).

4.   A sidelight is that the woman represents the remnant of faith in
Isaiah 7, Isaiah and his sons represent the remnant in Isaiah 8, and in Isa
9:1-7 the Davidic son enables the remnant to dominate.

5.   Although Isaiah does not explicitly use his name, his book uses the
noun and verb "save" more than any other prophet, often in conjunction with
the name of the Lord.

6.   See GKC 126r, which describes the capacity of the Hebrew definite
article to take an indefinite sense. So in Isa 7:14 it could be either
definite or indefinite.

7.   See J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends (London: T. & T.
Clark, 1977) 30 and 128, l. 7.

8.   The possibility that there was a double fulfillment remains; in this
case Isa 8:8, 10 with 9:6 would indicate that the intention of God's words
transcended the immediate fulfillment in Ahaz's day.