The Elusive Woman and Enigmatic Sign of Isaiah 7:14

28 Pages·2023·0.267 MB·English

by  Daniel FREEMYER, SONG Inseo

KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 48 No. 3
The Elusive Woman and Enigmatic
Sign of Isaiah 7:14:
A History of Their Interpretations
Daniel FREEMYER, Ph.D. Candidate
Adjunct Professor, Old Testament
Azusa Pacific University, U.S.A.
SONG Inseo, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor, Church History
Fuller Theological Seminary, U.S.A.
I. Introduction: The Missing Woman in Isaiah 7:14
II. What Does ‘Almah Mean?: Ancient Versions of Isaiah 7:14
III. Who Is the Woman?: Patristic Commentators on Isaiah 7:14
IV. Who Is the Son?: Rabbinic Commentators on Isaiah 7:14
V. What Does the Sign Do?: Sixteenth-Century Interpretations of Isaiah 7:14
VI. W ho Else Can Be the Woman?: Modern and Post-Modern Commentators
on Isaiah 7:14
VII. Whom Do We Trust?: A Contextual Reading of Isaiah 7:14
VIII. Conclusion
Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 48 No. 3 (2016. 9), 81-108
DOI: 10.15757/kpjt.2016.48.3.004
82 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 48 No. 3
Abstract
Two scholars from different continents (Asia and North America)
and trained in two different fields (Old Testament Literature and Church
History) have collaborated to produce a history of interpretation for a key
text in both fields: Isaiah 7:14. This hybrid article utilizes the interaction
between Old Testament hermeneutics and historical theology to trace
the responses to two main questions: “Who is the woman?” and “What
is the sign?” The article first addresses the early philological debate
between patristic theologians and Jewish interpreters regarding the
connotations of the word for the woman (‘almah) as either a virgin or
a young woman. Secondly, it discusses the two trajectories within the
development of rabbinic interpretation, focusing on the identity of the
future son. Also, the reformation commentaries of Luther and Calvin are
presented next to reveal different hermeneutics employed to address the
function of the sign. Subsequently, the article proceeds to the treatment
of the verse in the rise of historical criticism, which itself provides a
clear contrast to pre-critical exegesis in its concern for a single identity
and its return to philological concerns. The history of interpretation
concludes with recent postmodern approaches that have challenged the
singularity of historical criticism. In the spirit of current scholarship,
a unique interpretation by the scholars is presented for consideration
that utilizes Ancient Near Eastern literature and contextual analysis to
propose a more inclusive understanding of the passage. Thus the article
stands as an attempt to foster dialogue about biblical texts that impact
theological decisions not only across disciplines but across traditions
and time.
Keywords
Isaiah 7:14, Virgin, Sign, History of Interpretation, Immanuel
The Elusive Woman and Enigmatic Sign of Isaiah 7:14:
A History of Their Interpretations
DOI: 10.15757/kpjt.2016.48.3.004 83
I. INTRODUCTION: THE MISSING WOMAN
IN ISAIAH 7:14
When filing a missing person report, it can be helpful to have a
picture, sign, or detailed description of the person. Imagine searching
for a person with the following description: “future mother.” Where
would one begin to look, especially with the person filing the report
being anonymous or deceased? Finding such a person could take
a while. Even with the aid of entire communities, the absence of
clear information can make the task daunting, even for experienced
detectives. Imagine not just trying to find this future mother but also
her “future son.” Now the missing person report has doubled from one
mystery to two. For interpreters of Isaiah 7, such mysteries have taken
over two thousand years and are still ongoing to determine the identity
of the “future mother” of Isaiah 7:14 and her “future son.”
The following paper, written together by a church historian and a
scholar of the Old Testament, was initiated by a friendly conversation
between the two as to the identity of the woman in Isaiah 7:14. Having
realized that there is a significant discontinuity between pre-critical
viewpoints and the current scholarship on the woman and the sign,
the conversation developed into a scholarly cooperative research of the
history of exegesis of Isaiah 7:14 in both pre-critical and historical-
critical eras. This hybrid study therefore reflects a church historian’s
interest in how a biblical text has been understood within the broad
history of interpretation and a biblical scholar’s contemporary inquiry
into how the text can be read contextually. The paper will examine the
patristic, the rabbinic, the reformation, and recent commentaries on
Isaiah 7:14 respectively and will attempt to discern whether they share
common philological and theological views regarding the identity of
the woman and the nature of the sign.1 After examining the history
1 For an overall discussion of the history of interpretation of the book of Isaiah,
see John F. A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1996); B. H. Lim, “Isaiah: History of Interpretation,” in
Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets, ed. by Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 378-91; C. A. Evans, “From Gospel to Gospel:
The Function of Isaiah in the New Testament,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah,
84 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 48 No. 3
of interpretation of the passage, the paper will suggest an alternative
reading of Isaiah 7:14 based on the literary and historical context of the
passage: the sign as ‘invitation’ to faith in God.
II. WHAT DOES ‘ALMAH MEAN?:
ANCIENT VERSIONS OF ISAIAH 7:14
Before exploring each group’s interpretation of the elusive woman
and the nature of the sign in the history of exegesis, it would be
necessary to analyze some philological challenges within the Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin manuscripts. As we will see below, crucial to each
exegetical group’s identification of the woman in history is the different
implications of the word choices of the Hebrew term ‘almah in the
passage. Depending on how one translates the original word ‘almah,
Isaiah 7:14 could be read in the following ways:2
Masoretic Texts Septuagint Texts2 Vulgate Texts
הֵנּהִ  תוֹא--םכֶלָ  אוּה יָנֹדאֲ  ןתִֵּי ןכֵלָ  διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse
σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ vobis signum ecce virgo concipiet
וֹמשְׁ  תארָקָוְ ןבֵּ  תדֶלֶֹיוְ הרָהָ  המָ לְעַ הָ  
ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις et pariet filium et vocabitis
לאֵ  וּנמָּ עִ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ nomen eius Emmanuhel
Thus Adonai himself will Through this the Lord himself For this, the Lord himself will
give to you a sign: Behold will give to you a sign: Behold give to you a sign: Behold a
the “concealed woman” is the “marriageable woman” in the “virgin woman” will conceive
pregnant and will bear a son womb has and will bear a son and will bear a son and she will
and she will call his name, and she will call his name call his name Immanuel.
“With us is God.” “Immanuel.”
vol. 2, ed. by C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 651-91; Brevard S. Childs,
The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 2004); Bae Hee-Sook, “Isaya 56jang 1-8jeolui jaegeongongdongche” [The
Restoration Community in Isaiah 58, 1-8], Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 39
(December 2010), 11-34; Kim Chang-Dae, “Jerusalem in Acts from the Perspective of
Zion Theology of Isaiah,” Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 42 (October 2011), 27-
46.
2 The Septuagint texts listed here do not include the Sinai Codex which has a
second masculine plural verb for the third to last word in the verse giving a meaning of
“you will call his name Immanuel.”
The Elusive Woman and Enigmatic Sign of Isaiah 7:14:
A History of Their Interpretations 85
The chart above shows the progression from Hebrew texts to the
Latin with regard to the woman. The Hebrew word, ‘almah, which is
used in the Masoretic texts and the Isaiah scroll from Qumran, is a
relatively rare word that is difficult to distinguish from other words
denoting females before they become mothers.3 Easier to distinguish
is betulah, which according to Genesis 24:14 indicates a woman who
has not had sexual relations with a man.4 The specific uses of ‘almah
include Genesis 24:43 in reference to Rebekah before she agreed to
become Isaac’s wife and Exodus 2:8 in reference to Moses’ sister before
her suggestion of Moses’ mother being his nurse.5 Equally nondescript
is its male corollary, which can be found in 1 Samuel 17:56 in reference
to David after he slew Goliath and 1 Samuel 20:22 for the unnamed
assistant who would fetch arrows for Jonathan.6 These references
have little in common other than being men and women who are not
married. That some of the references literarily precede mention of
marriage could be significant especially if the root, ‘lm, which seems
to be derived from the verb meaning to conceal as attested in Hebrew
and Ugaritic, has connotations of pre-marriage seclusion.7 The definite
3 For a detailed discussion of the possibilities, see John Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (Columbia:
Thomas Nelson Publisher, 2005), 136-37.
4 For analysis of the connotations of betulah, see Christophe Rico, La mère de
l’Enfant-Roi Isaïe 7, 14 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2013), 42-43.
5 The description in Genesis 24:43 could suggest that an ‘almah is synonymous with
virgin since Rebekah is described as a betulah in Genesis 24:16. However, the prayer of
Abraham’s servant could utilize ‘almah as a more generic term than virgin, which would
be an expression of amazement that Adonai not only provided marriageable woman but
a virgin as well. Note how the servant’s original prayer in Genesis 24:16 was for a na’arah,
but in relaying the prayer to Laban’s family in Genesis 24:43, he uses ‘almah.
6 Though David had been described as the youngest of Jesse’s eight sons and thus
not among the three oldest who were eligible to fight, the word may not designate a
young man who is too young for battle since the older sons may have fulfilled the military
requirements for the family, and thus David need not fight for Saul his entire life. It is
interesting to note that the reference comes a chapter before David’s marriage.
7 See Gregorio Del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic
Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (Boston: Brill, 2004), 158; Ludwig Köhler, et. al.
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1994-2000), 834-35.
The connotation of concealment can be seen in Midrash Rabbah Shemoth, 1.25, which
involves a discussion where Samuel ben Nahmani, a rabbi in the third century, replies to
the question, “Why is she called an ‘almah?” His answer is that she concealed her identity.
86 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 48 No. 3
article indicates a specific person is being addressed, but the anonymity
of the woman makes her mirror the root of the word – she remains
“concealed.”
The ambiguity of the Hebrew term finds a little clarification with
more nuances when examining the Septuagintal choice of parthenos.8
The word is used twice where the Masoretic texts have ‘almah, the
other being Rebekah in Genesis 24:43. Prolifically, the word is used 43
times where the Hebrew word betulah is found; one such instance is
Genesis 24:16 about Rebekah whom no man had touched, which would
tilt the connotation toward virgin.9 One complication, however, is its
use where the Hebrew word na‘arah is found. One such problematic
passage is Genesis 34:3 where it is used for Dinah after she has been
taken by Shechem for sexual purposes; she has lost her virginity and is
yet called parthenos. That she is a young woman eligible for marriage is
a feature that remains shared with the other connotations. Interestingly,
early second century Greek recensions such as Aquila, Symmachus,
and Theodotion utilize the Greek word neanis, which does not have the
connotation of virgin.10 Thus, the Greek descriptors do not necessarily
indicate virgin either but do designate a woman who is eligible for
marriage.
More specific than the Hebrew or Greek choices are the words
found in Latin and Syriac translations. The Syriac Peshitta uses
, which indicates that the woman is “in her youth.”11 This
The reference can also be found in the parallel passage in b. Sot. I2b. Avigdor Shinan, ed.,
Midrash Rabbah, Shemot, Chapters 1-14: A Critical Edition (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University,
1984). For the phonetic evolution of the word, see Rico, La mère, 63-66.
8 For a detailed discussion of the debate concerning parthenos, see Rodrigo Sousa,
Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1-12 (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 70-75.
9 The connotation of virgin seems to be consistent in New Testament references,
Homer, and other Greek Literature. See Giulia Sissa, Greek Virginity (trans. Goldhammer;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1990), 81-87.
10 For analysis of the recensions, see Joseph Ziegler, Isaias (Septuaginta 14; Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 147. Justin Martyr argues against the selection of
this word in his Dialogue with Trypho, which is discussed in Young’s article. Edward
Young, “The Immanuel Prophecy,” in Studies in Isaiah (London: Tyndale Press, 1955),
160-72. It should be noted that later in the dialogue, Justin Martyr makes a clear defense
of the son in Isaiah 7:14 being Christ and not Hezekiah.
11 The Syro-Hexaplaric manuscript also has the same connation of specifying the
The Elusive Woman and Enigmatic Sign of Isaiah 7:14:
A History of Their Interpretations 87
choice is mirrored in the Latin manuscripts. The Vulgate uses the word,
virgo, which indicates a woman before having any sexual interactions.
The word has connotations of a vestal female even in the Old Testament
references such as Genesis 24:16 and Genesis 24:43, the first of which
regards the description about no man having touched Rebekah and the
second entails the prayer of Abraham’s servant for a potential fiancée of
Isaac. Additionally, codices Cavensis and Amiatinus regarding the use
of the word in Proverbs add the phrase, adulescentia sua, indicating the
girl’s young age. Moreover, the Vulgate has unspecified the virgin with
the lack of a definite article. Thus the Latin manuscripts make it clear
that the woman is a young virgin who fulfills the sign in a miraculous
way.
III. WHO IS THE WOMAN? : PATRISTIC
COMMENTATORS ON ISAIAH 7:14
As discussed above, the connotation with regard to the woman
in Isaiah 7:14 has progressed from the original Hebrew term ‘almah
(Masoretic texts) to parthenos in Greek (the Septuagint), and it was
later translated as virgo in the Latin Vulgate. What renders the progress
of translation extremely complicated is that compared to the more
frequently used term betulah, the word ‘almah is rarely employed
in the original Hebrew texts, and the Greek texts translated ‘almah,
betulah, and na’arah as parthenos without making a clear distinction
in their meanings. Therefore, the difficulty of the connotation and
identification of the elusive woman in Isaiah 7:14 lies in the ambiguity
of the Hebrew word ‘almah, and interestingly it is the very issue that
patristic commentators such as Jerome, Eusebius of Caesarea, and John
Chrysostom discussed in their exegeses.12
When the patristic commentators’ debated against their contem-
youth of the woman.
12 There are four main patristic exegetes who left a full commentary on Isaiah:
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 340), Jerome (c. 345-c. 420), Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-
c. 444), and Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393-c. 460).
88 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 48 No. 3
porary Jewish interpreters with regard to the woman, they paid a special
attention to the philological difficulty of understanding and translating
the Hebrew term ‘almah. Particularly, Jerome accepts a Jewish chal-
lenge that betulah has been much more frequently used in the original
Hebrew texts to denote a virgin than ‘almah, which, from a Jewish per-
spective, simply means a young common woman.13 Jerome, however,
contends that what has been regularly used to refer to a young woman
or a girl in the Hebrew texts is not so much ‘almah but na’arah.14 Just
as bethulah is the exact word to be translated as a virgin, according to
Jerome, na’arah, not ‘almah, is the right Hebrew term to be used with
regard to a young common woman. Remarkably, Jerome maintains that
‘almah employed in Isaiah 7:14 refers not so much to a young ‘ordinary’
woman, or a ‘common’ virgin, but to “a hidden virgin” (absconditam
virginem), who is absolutely veiled from the sight of people.15 From
Jerome’s view, the prophet Isaiah intentionally chose the specific term
‘almah, instead of the usual Hebrew words such as betulah and na’arah,
in order to manifest the special status of the woman in human history,
namely, ‘the hidden virgin’ carefully selected, prepared, and promised
by God.
Also, Eusebius notices the philological issue that ‘almah is translated
as parthenos, which usually means a maiden, rather than a virgin in the
Greek texts. Yet, the Greek translation of ‘almah as a maiden, argues
Eusebius, is not necessarily incorrect, since if a maiden has never before
conceived, then a maiden is perfectly interchangeable with a virgin in
13 Jerome, “Adversus Jovinianum,” in Opera omnia, Patrologiae cursus completes.
Series Latina 23, ed. by J.-P. Minge (Paris: Minge, 1845), 266: “Scio Judaeos opponere
solere, in Hebraeo verbum ALMA non virginem sonare, sed adolescentulam.” Also, see
L. N. Hartmann, “St. Jerome as an Exegete,” in A Monument to St. Jerome, ed. by F. X.
Murphy, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1952), 37-81. Hartmann says that Jerome was not
only trained as a youth by the best of Roman classicists in Latin philology, style, and
rhetoric, but also studied with the most outstanding representatives of both the Alex-
andrian school (Didymus) and the Antiochene school (Apollinaris and the Cappado-
cian Fathers). Jerome was also acquainted with rabbinical traditions and continued to be
taught by learned Jewish scholars, especially when translating the Vulgate.
14 Jerome, “Adversus Jovinianum,” 266: “Et revera virgo proprie BETHULA appel-
latur, adolescentula autem vel puella, non ALMA dicitur, sed NAARA.”
15 Ibid.
The Elusive Woman and Enigmatic Sign of Isaiah 7:14:
A History of Their Interpretations 89
meaning in that the term denotes a marriageable and mature young
woman. In Eusebius’s thought, the Septuagintal choice of parthenos for
the Hebrew term ‘almah is not an error at all, since ‘almah, like betulah
and na’arah, has no philological problem to indicate the Virgin Mary,
who was also a young woman eligible for marriage but did not have
any prior sexual intercourse. In other words, even if ‘almah possibly
means a young ordinary woman as Jewish commentators have insisted,
for Eusebius both ‘almah and its Greek equivalent parthenos can still
refer to Mary who was a young mature virgin as the New Testament
describes.
In short, both Jerome and Eusebius clearly acknowledged the am-
biguity of the Hebrew term ‘almah and the difficulty of the connotation
of the mysterious woman in Isaiah 7:14. The patristic commentators,
however, did not consider the original term’s vagueness and its rare
usage in the Hebrew texts as a problem. Rather, they regarded ‘almah
as perfectly fitting to the special reference of Mary, who was a young
maiden eligible for marriage and at the same time a virgin hidden from
the sight of people;16 from the patristic perspective, for the purpose
of revealing and hiding God’s soteriological plan, the rare and elusive
term ‘almah is much more preferable than betulah and na’arah.17 In ad-
dition to the philological issue, the patristic commentators all agreed
that the promise could not be a divine sign if it simply indicates a com-
mon young woman’s natural conception: a biblical sign must transcend
the ordinary operations of nature. Chrysostom’s comment on the sign
summarizes the patristic views succinctly:
16 Eusebius of Caesarea, “Commentarius in Isaiam,” in Eusebius Werke 9, ed. by J.
Ziegler (Berlin: GCS, 1975), 133-36.
17 For a discussion of Jerome’s philological concern in his exegesis, see Michael
Graves, Jerome’s Hebrew Philology: A Study Based on His Commentary on Jeremiah
(Leiden: Brill, 2007); Andrew Cain, Jerome and the Monastic Clergy: A Commentary on
Letter 52 to Nepotian, with an Introduction, Text, and Translation (Leiden: Brill, 2013).
Graves mentions that for Jerome, philology means the love of learning and literature in
the general sense and also indicates in a wider sense the study of literature, including
grammar, literary criticism and interpretation, the relation of literature and written
records of history. Particularly, returning to the hebraica veritas was crucial for Jerome’s
exegesis to understand, explain, and restore the literature of the Old Testament.
90 KOREA PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Vol. 48 No. 3
If he [Isaiah] had said that a woman was about to bear a child in the
ordinary way, something that happens every day, why would he call
that a sign? This is why he did not say, “Look, a virgin,” but “Look, the
virgin.” By using the definite article, he informs us that this is something
extraordinary and unique.18
IV. WHO IS THE SON?: RABBINIC COMMENTATORS
ON ISAIAH 7:14
The patristic commentators’ views on Isaiah 7:14 examined above,
which are centered on the word ‘almah as a virgin and the extraordinary
nature of the sign, had been generally accepted in the history of Christian
exegesis before the serious challenge of historical criticism. By contrast,
rabbinic comments displayed a significant movement from perceiving
the term as a young woman to a virgin and from the sign being related
with Ahaz to connections with Isaiah and Israel. In the second through
fourth centuries, the primary and secondary references to rabbinic
interpretation indicate that the association of ‘almah with a young
woman was common. The Targum of Jonathan clearly understood the
word to denote a young woman.19 Additionally, Justin’s dialogue with
Trypho seems to indicate that early Jewish interpretation saw the ‘almah
as a young woman connected with Ahaz’s wife. As the reference to
Trypho indicates, the Jewish commentators were more concerned with
connecting the woman to a specific individual rather than debating the
philological connotations. Rabbi Hillel is another in the first century
who interprets the son in Isaiah to be the Messiah, which he connects
18 John Chrysostom, “Interpretatio in Isaiam Prophetam,” in Opera omnia. Patrologiae
cursus completes. Series Graeca 56, ed. by J.-P. Minge (Paris: Minge, 1862), 295-96. Both
Jerome and Eusebius share the same view that the divine sign in Isaiah 7:14, which is
from their perspective without doubt referring to Christ’s virgin birth, is in essence ‘a
paradoxical wonder’ that humanity has never seen and heard before from the beginning
of time.
19 See Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic III: The Latter Prophets according to
Targum Jonathan (Leiden: E. J. Brill 1959-73, 1992), 15.