Its interesting how this topic continually pops up from time to time. Do a search on open forums as far back as you can, and you’ll see several threads that have discussed this over the years.
My take involving the interpretation of how the original language should be translated to come to the conclusion that the concept of the virgin birth is actually the correct way to translate the passages both in Isaiah 7: 14/Isaiah 8:8 and the reference to this passage in Matthew 1:23 is as follows.
I believe to understand the concept of the virgin birth in translation, we must understand the significance of the title or name of the person who was to be born: Immanuel, which in itself means ‘God with us.’
In the context of the passage in Isaiah 7, Syria and Israel (the Northern Kingdom, with its capital in Samaria, as opposed to Judah, the sourthern kingdom, with its capital in Jerusalem) had desired to form a coalition with Judah in order to oppose the increasing power of Assyria. Judah had vacillated, and Syria and Israel determined to punish her. Upon hearing this news, King Ahaz of Judah “trembled in fear.” The Lord sent the Prophet Isaiah to inform him that he had nothing to fear. The power of his enemies was about played out, and they could do him no harm. Isaiah even commanded him to ask or a sign in confirmation of the divine message. This Ahaz refused to do, with a sudden heretofore absent reverence for the true God. Hence, in reply to the hypocritical king, Isaiah announces that the Lord will give to the people of Judah a sign. In vision the prophet beholds a virgin (‘alma’, literally “an unmarried woman,” or a “young woman,” but as I explain later, I lean towards the former as the proper translation), who is with child and about to bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel.
In interpreting this prophecy, I believe there are three factors to keep in mind:
a. The birth of the child is to be a sign. It is true that in itself a sign need not be a miracle, but in this particular context, after the command issued to Ahaz to ask for a sign “deep or high,” one would be justified in expecting a sign such as the recession of the shadow on the sundial (see Isaiah 38: 7-8). Thus, in the context of the chapter, this is something far from “ordinary,” such as the birth of the son of a King, or Isaiah’s own son. There should be something unusual in the birth; a birth in the ordinary course of nature would not seem to meet the requirements of the sign. In this connection it must be noted that the question is made more difficult by the fact that there cannot be a local reference of the prophecy to Hezekiah (son of Ahaz, and a future King who demonstrated the character qualities of a righteous leader) , because Hezekiah had already been born. (applying this passage to Hezekiah has been how many modern scholars have tried to circumvent the whole “virgin birth” concept)
b. The mother of the child is an unmarried woman. Why did Isaiah designate her by this particular word alma? It is sometimes said that had he wished to refer to a virgin birth there was a good word at his disposal, namely, “betula.” (I know I’m not spelling these hebrew terms correctly, but just transliterating them the best I can). But an examination of the usage of the latter word in the Old Testament reveals that it was unsatisfactory, in that it would have been ambiguous. The word betula may designate a virgin, but when it does the explanatory phrase ‘and a man had not known her’ is often added (cf. Gen. 24:6). The word may also designate a betrothed virgin (cf. Dt. 22: 23). In this latter case the virgin is known as the wife (“issa”) of the man, and he as her husband (“is”) But the word “betula” may also indicate a married woman (Joel 1:8). On the basis of this latter passage a tradition arose among the Jews in which the word could clearly refer to a married woman. Had Isaiah employed this word, therefore, it would not have been clear what type of woman he had in mind, whether virgin or married. Other Hebrew. words which were at his disposal would also not be satisfactory. Had he wished to designate the mother as a young woman he would most likely have employed the common term “naara” (‘girl’). In using the word “alma” however, Isaiah employs the one word which is never applied (either in the Bible or in the other Near Eastern sources) to anyone but an unmarried woman. This unmarried woman might have been immoral, in which case the birth could hardly have been a sign. This leaves the conclusion that the mother was a good woman and yet unmarried; in other words, the birth was supernatural. It is the presence of this word “alma” which makes an application of the passage to some local birth difficult, if not impossible.
c. There is also the force of the term for the child to be born: “Immanuel.” A natural reading of the passage would lead us to expect that the presence of God is to be seen in the birth of the child himself. This interpretation, however, is seriously disputed, and vigorously rejected by most modern scholars when interpreting this passage. My undergraduate religion professors offered that the “presence of God” announced by Immanuel is found not in the birth of a living person, but rather, in the deliverance of Judah from her two northern enemies. The infancy of the child is made the measure of time that would elapse until the two enemies are removed. Such a period of time would be short – a child learns the difference between good and evil at a tender age. Hence, within, say, two years, or possibly even less, Judah would have nothing to fear from Syria and Israel. In this deliverance the presence of God would be manifested, and as a token or pledge of this deliverance some mother would call her child Immanuel.
This interpretation poses other problems which it does not answer. What reason would a mother have for naming her particular child Immanuel? How could she know that her own child and no other would be a sign that in two years or so the presence of God would be manifested in the deliverance of Judah from Syria and Israel? Furthermore, how would Israel itself know that a particular child had been born in answer to the prophecy and that the birth of this particular child would be the promised sign? It would seem that, if the prophecy refers to a local birth, the child to be born must be someone prominent. The most prominent person, namely Hezekiah, is ruled out, and therefore we must assume that it is a child of Isaiah or some other child of Ahaz. But this is also ruled out by the word , alma. Neither the wife of Ahaz nor the wife of Isaiah could properly be designated an “alma:, for the obvious reason that both were married women.
Also, if this was to truly be a “sign,” it would not have been terribly significant if it was merely contemporary to the situation at hand for Ahaz, in that within another two generations, the power of the Babylonian empire would swallow Judah whole. In other words, a “sign” isn’t much of a sign if it provides only temporary political relief, particularly when Ahaz’s throne will topple in about 80 years. It must therefore have broader significance.
It seems best, then, to apply the name Immanuel to the Child Himself. In His birth the presence of God is to be found. God has come to His people in a little Child, that very Child whom Isaiah later names ‘Mighty God’ (“el gibbor”) This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that Isaiah is seeking to dissuade men from trusting the Assyrian king. The nation’s help rests not in Assyria but in God. In this dark moment God is with His people. He is found in the birth of a Child.
The fifteenth and sixteenth verses of Isaiah 7 then use the infancy of the divine Child as a measure of the time that will elapse until Ahaz is freed from the fear of his two northern enemies. Ahaz rejects the sign of Immanuel, and turns to the king of Assyria. That king and his successors cause Judah’s downfall, but for the remnant there was given the promise of Immanuel, and in Immanuel they would find their hope and salvation. Thus, the prophecy of the “time lapse” is actually speaking of a spiritual oppression, not a political one (or is at least operating on both levels). It is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus.
Soxfan59
John 16:13
