Introduction
As one of the most heralded and foundational doctrines of Christianity, the virgin birth of Christ serves an important role in Scripture. If it did not occur, Jesus was simply another man, possessing a sinful nature. He would have been disqualified from providing atonement for sins, since the Father required a pure sacrifice. Therefore, His being born without a human father is essential for the veracity of Scripture. On the other hand, the doctrines of biblical inspiration and inerrancy are just as foundational to Christianity. Without confidence in the biblical authors’ writings or their correlation with that of others, believers lose faith in their sole authoritative document. Thus, the study of the New Testament’s use of the Old is crucial.
Matthew’s account of the virgin birth claims this event was a fulfillment of prophecy: “Now all this occurred in order that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled,” (1:22). Matthew’s quotation points the reader to Isaiah, who prophesied of a coming birth (7:14). Both scholars and students debate whether Isaiah had the true Messiah in view or whether Matthew confiscated his text to add validity to his own writing. If Isaiah and Matthew were not referring to the same event, some would ask how this could even be considered a prophecy. If the virgin birth was not prophesied in the Old Testament, how can believers be confident in not only the inerrancy of Scripture but also the countless other “prophecies” that may not be completely predictive?
This paper cannot cover all the factors that contribute to a proper understanding of these texts. However, a fresh analysis of both Isaiah and Matthew may allow the reader to understand not only how Matthew wrote but also how other biblical authors may have used the Old Testament under the Holy Spirit’s guiding. In this paper, I begin by briefly explaining some keyhermeneutical presuppositions. Next, I will summarize the major views of how New Testament
authors used the Old Testament. The importance of these sections is for the reader to recognize how various methods of thought can complement one another in offering solutions. Then, an analysis of the multiple contexts will survey how Isaiah’s narrative and prophecy was understood throughout its existence, culminating in Matthew’s “quotation” regarding the Savior’s birth. The conclusion will summarize the philosophies, theories, and information in an attempt to point the reader toward a higher view of Scripture. With a fresh appreciation for Scripture’s unique complexity, the reader may recognize the complete sovereignty of the Divine who revealed His perfect plan progressively, yet accurately, to mankind.
Philosophical Hermeneutic of the Author
Two key points of my hermeneutic will help the readerunderstand my conclusions. First, written communication only takes place when an author gives a message to a reader, who then understands the message as the author intended. Therefore, the basic message must be verbally expressed, determinate, and shareable between the two entities. Other levels of meaning exist (e.g., illocution), but without a surface level of verbal meaning, those deeper levels cannot be recognized. Furthermore, a meaning cannot change throughout time, because the reader would be unable to process whether or not he understands the intended meaning.
When considering Isaiah’s prophecy, the words he wrote must possess an original meaning that impacted his audience. This does not limit the referent of the “virgin” or “child” to Isaiah’s timeframe, since a future prophecy could intentionally provide hope for a coming Messiah. However, it is significant to note that the modern interpreter must wrestle with how Isaiah’s audience understood the text and not impose a post-Christ interpretation on a community from the eighth century B.C.
Second, though the biblical author had an intended meaning for his audience, Hirsch acknowledges that any author referencing the future writes with provisionality.
We are tentative about our meanings because we are looking ahead. We know that in the future the conceptual content of our meanings may turn out to be not quite true. We speak “under correction,” because we are uncertain about what will happen in the future, and we are also uncertain about the exactitude of our knowledge concerning the present and the past.
According to Hirsch, the provisional nature of future-oriented language enables the intent to be sincere, though it is always spoken “under correction.” At this point, it is helpful to remember Hirsch’s linguistic distinction between type and token. That is, the general language of future-oriented events or circumstances does not always explicitly reference all the particular tokens within that framework. On the other hand, theories of inspiration and inerrancy disallow a divinely inspired prophet from vaguely speaking of the future because he does not know what will happen. I hold that the original author had one meaning in mind, though he may not have had the clearest perception of all the specifics. In this respect, I agree with Glenny:
The meaning in the original context may take on new dimensions of meaning when the text is placed in a different context or as the canonical context grows. The further dimensions of meaning are extensions of the concept found in the original context. These further dimensions of meaning are able to be subsumed under the original conceptual meaning. They do not do violence to the original conceptual meaning.
This encompasses the unique nature of Scripture, in which dual fulfillments, typology, sensus plenus (full meaning), and dual authorship play a role in understanding the text properly.
Overview of New Testament’s Use of the Old
In his first article on the New Testament’s use of the Old, Dr. Bock lists four main schools of thought with strengths and weaknesses of each view. The reader is pointed to that article for a deeper analysis of these views. I will simply provide the basic premise of each and a call for a balanced approach.
First, the “Full Human Intent” school claims, “if hermeneutics is to have validity then all that is asserted in the Old Testament passage must have been a part of the human author’s intended meaning.” Any concept of sensus plenior(fuller meaning) is denied. Second, the “Divine Intent-Human Words” school basically states that God shared revelation with the Old Testament author on the type level, while the specific tokens and fulfillment may have been left open intentionally. This allows for pattern fulfillment, in which God’s method of repeated actions is recognized. The third main interpretational grid recognizes parallels in the New Testament with first century Jewish hermeneutics. Longenecker argues that the New Testament authors were able to limit the referent of Old Testament passages based on exegetical methods (e.g., pesher, midrash) offered them by Jewish hermeneutics. The final view is the “Canonical Approach,” which is held most prominently by Bruce Waltke. In essence, this view uses the New Testament’s interpretation to provide the intended meaning for the original Old Testament texts.
None of these schools are supported by a majority of scholars, and all must answer certain questions in their methodology. For example, Kaiser would argue that all texts can be interpreted properly within his methodology, but most scholars strongly deny that some Old Testament texts have the same meaning as the quotation in the New (e.g., Hos 11 in Matt 2). In Longenecker’s theory, the reader is susceptible to draw too many parallels with non-canonical works and methods. Proposed connections often fail to demonstrate proper correlation or an explicit relationship among texts. Furthermore,both the second and third schools may minimize the role of “prophecy,” in that a fulfillment enables the audience to recognize the prophecy in its original context as opposed to the revelation of God in centuries past. However, I find Waltke’smethod to be most problematic, since it overlooks the importance of progressive revelation.
Though I find some validity in each method, I find the most value in the “Divine Intent- Human Words” framework. In answer to Kaiser’s view, I agree with Bock. “So to try to limit the meaning to the human author’s intention seems to be too narrow a view. However, to say that there is a clear and definable connection between the expression of the humanauthors and God’s intention seems necessary, or else the text can be made to say anything whatsoever in its fulfillment.” Thus, God’s intent may encompass and supersede the human author’s intent, but there must be a close correlation between the two. This crucial point will surface again in my analysis of Isaiah 7.
In summary, the student must simply recognize the numerous factors at work before engaging a specific passage. I have not tried to explain all that can affect these issues (e.g., linguistic theories, language of the LXX, etc.), but the reader perceives all that must be included when studying a New Testament use of the Old. Multiple contexts should be analyzed, and the relationship among them is not always clear. Yet, with this foundation laid, one can analyze the use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23, beginning with a fresh look at Isaiah 7.
Events of Isaiah 7
Isaiah 7:10–25 records an oracle that was given to Ahaz, including a sign that confirmed the Lord’s words. Both the historical and literary contexts surrounding Isaiah 7:14 offer significant information when interpreting the verse in Isaiah’s day. Below, I will not only analyze these contexts further, but I intend to demonstrate how Isaiah’s words have a “full” meaning for his audience of the eighth century. The two main arguments that support this claim come from the historical background and the linguistic features of Isaiah 7.
First, the biblical accounts of the eighth century events necessitate a prophecy whose sign affected the people of that time. During Ahaz’s reign over the kingdom of Judah, Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel joined forces in an attempt to conquer Ahaz’s kingdom, but they were unable to meet that goal.Nevertheless, they continued to attack, and Ahaz called for aidfrom Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria. Ahaz begged the king to attack his enemies, offering both gifts from the temple and subordination from Judah, and Tiglath-pileser honored this request according to 2 Kings 16:9. Nevertheless, Ahaz did not repent of his wickedness. Eventually, Assyria became Judah’s enemy, and the southern kingdom was punished just as their northern brothers.
Isaiah’s account differs slightly, in that the prophet does not mention Ahaz’s request to Assyria or the response. However, Isaiah uniquely inserts a passage in chapter seven, in which Isaiah confronts Ahaz and promises the Lord’s deliverance. Based on the chronology of events and no mention of calling onAssyria in this passage, I perceive that Ahaz did not take God’s promise seriously, resulting in his alliance with a pagan king. However, Isaiah does predict the coming Judean destruction by the hand of Assyria (Isa 7:17–25) which complements the historical account of 2 Kings.
The purpose of this historical context is to demonstrate the significance of Isaiah 7:14. Israel and Syria formed an alliance against Judah to profit from her destruction. These two nations were much stronger than Judah, and the southern inhabitants were severely frightened. Even though the alliance was unable to conquer Judah, Ahaz still lacked confidence in God. Therefore, the Lord sent Isaiah to Ahaz to predict the coming destruction of his enemies. In this context, Isaiah commands Ahaz to request a sign from God, which he refuses to do. Isaiah then gives a sign anyway: the birth of a child. Furthermore, the sign continues past verse fourteen. “He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted,” (Isa 7:15–16). Thus, before the boy developed into aninfant or small child, Syria and Israel would be destroyed. This sign serves as comfort for Ahaz, and thus, necessitates the birth of a child in the eighth century.
Yet, the prophecy still does not end in verse sixteen. Isaiah 7:17 predicts the coming destruction of Judah at the hand of Assyria, Ahaz’s perceived ally, because of the king’s faithlessness. Thus, the immediate relief from Syria and Israel would be followed by destruction because Ahaz would not ask a sign from the Lord. Within that judgment, though, God would not abandon His covenant with the Davidic dynasty. A child would be born that represented God’s presence with His people.Gerhard Delling develops this thought in his article, stating, “the name Immanuel … is to be taken only as a sign of salvation.”Delling argues that God’s judgment would be immediate but Immanuel was a sign of salvation in the distant future. Yet, the context seems at least to express the opposite notion. The relief from oppression is coming, and the Assyrian destruction will come later. Arguing for distant salvation on the basis of “Immanuel” lifts the child’s name out of its historical context and applies it to other individuals characterized as deliverers in the remainder of the book.
Second, the linguistic features of Isaiah 7 probably point to an immediate fulfillment of the prophecy. I have provided verse fourteen and a fresh translation for the reader’s reference.
lae WnM'[I wOmv. tar'q'w> !Be td,l,yOw> hr'h' hm'l.[;h' hNEhi twOa= ~k,l' aWhiyn"doa] !TeyI !kel'
“Therefore, the Lord Himself will give to you (mp) a sign. Behold, a/the/this young woman is/ will become pregnant, and she will bear a son, and you (fs) will call his name ‘Immanuel.’”
The first feature to discuss is the nature of the word hm'l.[;(almah). In its basic sense, it indicates a “marriageable girl,” “a girl who is able to be married,” or “a young woman.” Only ninebiblical passages contain the word, and the referent is sometimes unknown (e.g., Ps 68:25), but the term typically seems to refer to virgins. The Hebrew term hl'WtB. (bethulah) is usually more explicit, emphasizing the sexual inexperience of the woman. However, Joel includes a reference to a hl'WtB that is to mourn for the husband of her youth (1:8). Therefore, lexical arguments seem to be unstable for either position. In Hirschian terms, it seems that hl'WtB could serve as a token of the type hm'l.[; but not vice versa. Thus, without any further knowledge of the referent in this passage, the translation of hm'l.[; could be either “virgin” or “young woman.”
After a brief analysis of the uses of hm'l.[; in the Old Testament as well as other equivalent words, Edward Young comments that this was the perfect word for Isaiah to use. The prophet was referring to an unmarried woman, following the normal sense of the word, but she was also a “good woman” at the same time. Young comments this was necessary for the birth to be unusual and, thus, a sign. Yet, it seems his interpretation of the passage is informing his argumentation. This passage does not mention whether or not this woman has been sexually active, is a “good” woman, or is married. Other contextual factors mustinform our decision, since the various Hebrew words have a highly interrelated semantic range.
Second, the article on the beginning of this word could have significance. The reader will notice that I have made this ambiguity explicit in my translation. The Hebrew article has many uses that do not correlate with its English counterpart(e.g., vocative, possession, etc.). Gesenius acknowledged thearticle could introduce a well-known or previously mentioned person, designate possession, or precede generic and abstract terms. The article can also function demonstratively, since this was its original use, but the demonstrative articular phrase usually has adverbial force (e.g., “this year,” Jer 28:16).Gesenius takes the article in Isaiah as denoting “a single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore, not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances.” He develops this thought in support of a Messianic referent for the child.
On the other hand, Waltke describes a category of usage that poses another option. Although the demonstrative article is used primarily with expressions of time, “the article may also mark nouns definite in the imagination, designating either a particular person or thing necessarily understood to be present or vividly portraying someone or something whose identity is not otherwise indicated.” He gives examples from Genesis (e.g., 22:6; 24:20; 35:17; 38:28) that contain this use. For example, Genesis 35:17 states, “And when her labor was at its hardest, the midwife said to her, ‘Do not fear, for you have another son.’” There has been no previous mention of a midwife, yet Moses inserted the article to indicate an individual who was obviously present at the time of these events. Likewise, the personal pronouns in Isaiah 7 (see below) seem to indicate the woman is not only assumed to be present but also singled out by the prophet.
Third, Hebrew grammars explain that hNEhi (hinneh) often indicates immediacy or near future events. Truly, without the explicit verb, the adjective could be future time as well (i.e., “the woman will become pregnant”). The exact timeframe cannot solely be limited by the adjective or participle, but the adjective may represent the present tense (“is pregnant”), and hNEhi with the participle points to the imminent future. I argue for a present tense based on other occurrences of hr'h' in announcements of pregnancy (e.g., Gen 16:11; 38:24; 2 Sam 11:5), in which anelided verb must be in the present tense.
Fourth, both second person pronouns are highly important to recognize in this context. The first, ~k,l' (7:13), is masculine plural and directs speech to the “house of David” and “weary men,” indicating the sign was for a wider audience than simply Ahaz. One could use the number of this pronoun to posit an ultimately future fulfillment for the nation of Israel. However, within the actual sign pronouncement, Isaiah indicates a woman is (or will become) pregnant, and then he addresses her. The second person pronoun of the verb tar'q'w> is feminine singular, implying the woman was not only present but also directly addressed. Certainly, this feature depends on the faithfulness of the Masoretes when inserting vowel points, for without the vowels, the verb tarq could be either masculine or feminine. Though the masculine singular pronoun would still refer to Ahaz specifically and not a future entity, I find more validity in the Masoretes rendering. Isaiah specifically instructed a woman in the audience to name her child “Immanuel.”
No argument has convinced the majority of scholars regarding the specific referent of the woman or the child. The eighth chapter of Isaiah records the birth of Isaiah’s second son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz. God told Isaiah to name his son this as an indication that Damascus (the capital of Syria) and Samaria (the capital of Israel) would be carried away. Since this chapter references the destruction of the same two nations, Israel and Syria, within a limited timeframe after a child’s birth, many see Isaiah’s son as the fulfillment of chapter seven. In essence, the chapters parallel one another, and Isaiah’s wife (i.e., the “prophetess”) fulfills the role of the “young woman.” Since she had already had a child (cf. 7:3), she could not be a “virgin,” but she could serve as an hm'l.[; in its basic sense. Though I agree with this line of reasoning because it sufficiently answers the exegetical issues, the exact designation of Isaiah’s referent in chapter seven cannot be proven and is somewhat secondary in importance.
Fifth, further debate surrounds the nature of the “sign” promised to Isaiah’s audience (including Ahaz). Most observe that the sign served as a prediction of blessing, in that Syria and Israel would be conquered by Assyria. In addition, the sign came after Ahaz refused to “test” the Lord, provoking Isaiah not only to give a sign but also to connect the sign with futuredestruction. Because the birth of the child is more closely related with future relief from enemies, some propose that the “sign” is the actual prediction itself (i.e., the certain word from the Lord). Beecher uses the example of Abraham and Sarah to demonstrate that God’s spoken word functions as confirmation of His predicted will. In Genesis 15:4–5, Abraham asked God how he could know the promised son would come supernaturally, andGod answered with further development of His covenant. Therefore, some admit the promised blessing in Isaiah 7 would occur before this child is born. Yet, because the destruction of Judah and removal of king Ahaz is mentioned as well, the “virgin oracle” itself becomes a “sign.” By this prophecy, God confirmed His will toward Ahaz and promised to preserve the Messianic line. From this perspective, the prophecy regarding the virgin birth solely refers to Christ, although the historical peace (and subsequent destruction) of Judah occurred just as God promised as well.
Certainly, God confirmed His promise to Abraham in the form of a covenant, but Isaiah’s prophecy seems to express a distinct and visible sign for the people of Judah. Furthermore, the temporal aspect associated with this prediction caused the audience to recognize when the prophecy had been fulfilled. Within Isaiah, the word for sign (twOa) is primarily used for persons or objects with special functions or significance (e.g., Isa 8:18 [Isaiah’s sons]; 19:20 [an altar]; 20:3 [Isaiah’s nakedness]; 55:13 [trees]). In Isaiah 35:7–8, 22, Hezekiah had asked for a sign of recovery from his sickness, and Isaiah told him the sign would be the moving backward of the sun’s shadow on the steps. In these examples, no further oracle is given as a confirming “sign” of God’s promise.
One use, though, parallels Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah gaveHezekiah a “sign” that Sennacherib’s threat against Judah would be cut off by the Lord. “And this is the sign for you: eating this year what grows of itself and in the second year what comes from that; and in the third year, you must sow and reap and plant vineyards and eat their fruit,” (Isa 37:30). One could say that God’s promise is confirmed through another promise, but again, the sign regards the temporal aspect, providing confidence to the king that relief would come soon. Thus, in Isaiah 7, the “sign” from God most likely is not a further prophecy, but Isaiah anticipates a future day which would remind the audience that God had been faithful to His promise. This understanding complements Isaiah’s typical use of the word, denoting a tangible monument that God’s promise had been fulfilled.
The final notable contextual factor is that “Immanuel” appears multiple times. Isaiah commands the woman to call her son’s name “Immanuel” (7:14). The name, which means “God is with us,” served as an indication of God’s presence with His people in the midst of adversity. However, after the birth of Isaiah’s second son in chapter eight, God again prophesies of the coming destruction of Judah at the hand of Assyria. “The king of Assyria and all his glory…will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread winds will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel,” (Isa 8:7–8). This further parallels Isaiah’s oracle in chapter seven, causing some to see Isaiah’s son as the referent in the previous chapter. In addition, Isaiah 8:9–10 give an oracle against the nations that would rise against Judah. Their counsel would “come to nothing” and “not stand, for God is with us,” (v. 10b). The use of the term in verse eight is second person singular, but I do not think the phrase “your land” demands that this figure be the ruling “prince” over the territory as Kaiser suggests. The only conclusion that can be stated is that the promise in Isaiah 7:14–16 has given confidence to Judah, andthey now recognize the presence of their God.
Contextually, some have argued that the scene shifts from the river to Ahaz’s palace court between verses nine and ten. If true, this could indicate that verses one through nine referencethe near future, while verses ten through twenty-five discuss a more distant time. One argument in support of this theory is the use of “in that day” before verses eighteen, twenty, twenty-one, and twenty-three. When Isaiah uses this phrase elsewhere, he typically references the end of time when God will finally rescue His people from all their enemies.
However, I would argue that even a changing scene does not affect the near fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. First, the same enemies and prophecy are given in both sections (vv. 1–9, 10–25). Second, although “in that day” typically references the distant future in Isaiah, the first mention of the phrase is verse eighteen, leaving verses ten through seventeen to reference the near future. I do not think many scholars would accept that verses eighteen through twenty-five are strictly future, while verses ten through seventeen are immediately relevant. Assyria is the hinge that connects verses seventeen and eighteen, and both sections reference the coming destruction by Assyria’s hand. Therefore, “in that day” here does not indicate a shift from the near to distant future. Third, the Masoretes inserted major paragraph breaks into the text, and the only breaks in this chapter come after verses seventeen and twenty-five. Although, both sections explain the coming destruction by Assyria, they have chosen to break the chapter at verse eighteen. This does not mean the shift in scenery is not possible between verses nine and ten, but it seems the Masoretes interpreted the whole passage as a unit.
In summary, Isaiah gave a sign regarding a young woman who was either pregnant already or would become pregnant soon. The child would serve the people of Judah as a sign of God’s presence and deliverance from their enemies, and the woman was to call her son “Immanuel.” Some have speculated the exact referent of the child (e.g., Hezekiah, Isaiah’s sons), but for this paper, those debates are not as significant. Verses fifteen and sixteen continue the “sign” to include a timetable for God’s involvement, indicating both a birth of a child and destruction of Judah’s enemies before the child is a certain age. Therefore, the historical and grammatical contexts that surround this passageseem to indicate the necessity for a “sign” in the time of King Ahaz. Regardless of the extent of discourse analysis, the pericope from verses ten to twenty-five includes a prophecy to a specific entity (i.e., Ahaz and the people of Judah) about a child whose physical and mental development provides the timeline for God’s activity. A near-fulfillment of these prophecies seems to indicate all its aspects pertained to the immediate age.
The Witness of the LXX
The text of the Septuagint is provided below with my translation.
διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐνγαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦΕμμανουηλ.
“Therefore, the Lord Himself will give to you (pl) a sign. Behold, the virgin will have in the womb, and she will bear a son, and you (sg) will call his name, ‘Emmanuel.’”
Within the LXX, hm'l.[; is normally translated by a form of νεᾶνις (e.g., Exod 2:8; Ps 67:26; Song 1:3), but παρθένος is found in both Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14. On the other hand, hl'WtB. was typically translated by παρθένος (e.g., Gen 24:16; Lev 21:3). Even Joel 1:8, which references a widow who mourns over the husband of her youth, uses παρθένος. It may appear that the LXX translators have made an interpretive change, causing Isaiah 7 to refer to a virgin, even though they typically translated hm'l.[; otherwise. In his commentary, Hagnerproposes this view, claiming Messianic expectations began to change in the second century B.C. On the other hand, παρθένοςwas often implemented for also translating hr'[]n: or r[;n:. For these reasons, after a survey of παρθένος in the LXX, Delling comments on the inadequacy of lexical arguments. “This review makes it plain that on purely lexical grounds it is impossible to say whether the translator is expressing true virginity when he uses παρθένος in Is 7:14.” Dohmen also claims that the LXX translators did not use παρθένος for any theological reason.
The recensions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion all insert νεᾶνις in Isaiah 7:14 instead of παρθένος. Debate surrounds whether they worked with a Greek text before them and simply revised as needed, but those discussions are not significant here because Matthew used παρθένος. Either he used the LXX reading, which contained the term he needed, or he attempted to translate the original Hebrew into his own version.
Regarding the rest of the verse, the reader will notice that the LXX kept the article before παρθένος to reflect the Hebrew article. Again, it cannot be anaphoric, since the “virgin” has not been mentioned in the passage. One could take it as introducinga well-known individual, expressing par excellence, or even being monadic. This latter sense would point to the one and only virgin in history that would bear Immanuel. On the other hand, since the article is present in the Hebrew text, the LXX translators probably reproduced it here with a similar deictic function. It could represent a theological shift toward a future prophecy, but that is not the only option.
The particle ἰδού parallels the Hebrew hNEhi, but the adjective and participle from the Hebrew text have been replaced with two future verbs. Since there was no verb in the Hebrew, the LXX translators have provided one and naturally given tense to the action. In this case, they have made the two middle verbs of the verse to match the other two verbs in the future tense. Again, one could argue the future tense solelyspeaks to the future timeframe in most circumstances (except commands), but these verbs do not misrepresent the Hebrew in any way. They do translate “is pregnant” with “will have in the womb,” disallowing the idea that she is already pregnant. Yet,there is no evidence here that they have deliberately inserted future tense verbs in view of Christ. Since the Hebrew participle would have represented action after Isaiah’s prophecy, the Greek future here is perfectly acceptable if not expected.
Another factor may have contributed to the changes in interpretation throughout time. Since Hebrew verbs provide not only person but also gender, the reader knows Isaiah specifically addressed the young woman. On the other hand, Greek verbs are not conjugated so specifically. Thus, the second person singularκαλέσεις (“you will call”) is not limited to the young woman.This may have contributed to Matthew’s alteration (see below).
Intertestamental Literature
For this portion of the study, I looked at the Isaiah Targum, the Mishnah and Talmud, and the Midrash Rabbah. This material is significant because it illustrates how beliefs developed in Judaism. However, some of these documents were written after Christ’s ministry, making it difficult to ascertainhow Jews interacted with the Old Testament before Christianity. Yet, the sources remain a good representation of how the Old Testament was understood. For example, the Isaiah Targum translates hm'l.[; as “young woman,” but the surrounding context has more obvious terms to reference immediate battles and scenes (e.g., military units, the city squares of Jerusalem; cf. Isa 7:18–19).
After searching Neusner’s translations of the Mishnah, Talmud, and several midrashim, as well as Danby’s translation of the Mishnah, I found few references to the current passage. Exodus Rabbah 18:5 references Isaiah 7:14 and parallelsImmanuel (taken as Maher-shalal-hash-baz) during the reign of Ahaz with Hezekiah’s deliverance from Sennacherib. Even here, the “divine” title is left in its historical setting, and no future birth is forecast. In addition, Numbers Rabbah 14:2 viewsHezekiah as the referent of Isaiah 7:15. Furthermore, it states that just as Hezekiah learned to know good and evil before a young age, the coming Messiah will also learn to know the Holy One without assistance. However, there is no expectation of an actual virgin birth in either case, and an eighth century referent is specified. It seems they recognized the Messiah as related to the prophecy but not a directly corresponding “fulfillment.” Furthermore, the Messiah is never assumed to be born of a virgin or to embody God’s actual presence.
Isaiah 9:6–7 are mentioned a few more times in both the Talmud and Midrash, and Hezekiah is also taken as the referent child in each of these sections (e.g., Lev. Rab. 36:6; Ruth Rab. 44:1; b. Sabb. 5:4; b. Sanh. 11:1–2; y. Sanh. 10:1). Furthermore, Hezekiah is seen as representing God’s blessing on the Davidic dynasty and functioning as a precursor of the Messiah. One would expect this more focused use of Isaiah 9 for Messianic purposes. Yet, in both passages, a literal historical referent is understood, and that individual represents the function and purpose of the Messiah. However, no one mentions the heightened significance of “God with us” or the future sign of a virgin birth.
What does this information indicate? I am not an expert in intertestamental literature, and I acknowledge a limited survey of the sources. However, it seems that Isaiah’s “virgin oracle”was not developed much within Judaism. Watts also acknowledges, “No record exists of special attention given to [Isaiah] 7:14 in pre-Christian Judaism.” This presents two possibilities: either there was no need to develop this passage or other prophecies took precedence because of their more explicit claims. In my view, Isaiah 7:14 is not mentioned in this literature for two reasons. First, the historical fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, including both relief from Syria and Israel and coming destruction by Assyria, had occurred. Babylonian, Persian, and Roman oppression followed, but the Jews had no reason to point to a specific sign from centuries past as a promise for future deliverance. Second, a future virgin birth was completely unexpected, primarily because of its biological impossibility. The Messiah was supposed to be the ultimate representative of God’s rule, but he was never described as God Himself, and thus, a virgin birth was unnecessary to maintain doctrinally. Regardless of the reason, Judaism did not develop Isaiah’s prophecy into a direct claim of significant events surrounding the Messiah’s birth. Instead, they understood Isaiah to be referring to Hezekiah, one of the few righteous kings in their history who served as a forerunner of their ultimate king. Therefore, the original context and the LXX translation becomethe only foundation for Matthew’s use in his gospel.
New Testament Context
The context of Matthew’s first chapter seems simple, and these verses possibly constitute one of the most well-knownevents in Scripture. During the reign of Caesar Augustus, Joseph of Nazareth was engaged to Mary. However, she became pregnant before they had intercourse. Luke records Gabriel’s encounter with Mary and her acceptance of the task appointed to her. Most likely, no one would believe her proclaimed virginity, and the community would forever despise her. When Joseph learned of her pregnancy, he mulled over the options of divorce, trial, or even stoning (cf. Deut 22:13–30). However, the angel also met Joseph and exhorted him to take Mary as his wife. Joseph obeyed the angel, and Mary bore a son without a biological father. Matthew 1:25 makes this abundantly clear.
The virgin birth is obviously attested by Matthew (and Luke), and this doctrine has become foundational for Christian theology. Nevertheless, the issue here is not Matthew’s claim that a virgin conceived and gave birth to the Messiah. The exegetical problem is his use of Isaiah 7:14. If Isaiah truly referenced his immediate future and the destruction of Syria and Israel, how can Matthew validly consider the birth of Christ a “fulfillment” of Isaiah’s words?
First, one should look at Matthew’s text, which I have provided below with a translation.
ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιντὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθ᾽ἡμῶν ὁ θεός.
“Behold, the virgin will have in the womb, and she will bear a son, and they will call his name ‘Emmanuel,’ which is interpreted, ‘God with us.’”
The article and verb tenses match the LXX, but one major difference is the subject of the “calling.” The LXX follows the Hebrew with a second person singular pronoun, while Matthew alters the verb to a third person plural subject. This change may support the view that Matthew translated Isaiah’s original into his own version. “We have no indication that Matthew’s plural verb came from any source other than his own creative interpretation of the text.”
It is possible that Matthew altered the wording from the Septuagint. After looking at how Matthew “quotes” the LXX, I found that he rarely repeats this source verbatim, but he sometimes does (e.g., 9:13 quoting Hos 6:6). When I looked at quotations from Isaiah, most examples altered the LXX text in some way, and only a few passages were repeated verbatim (e.g., 13:14–15 quoting Isa 6:9–10; 21:5 quoting Isa 62:11). Other passages are very close but differ slightly (e.g., 15:8–9 quoting Isa 29:13; 1:23 quoting Isa 7:14). This seems to indicate that Matthew either provided his own translation or had a different version of the Old Testament that no longer exists (or both). Matthew may have used the LXX, but his constant divergence from it at least seems to indicate his freedom from being tied to its words. After noting this same inconsistency in Matthew’s quotation preferences, France comments, “The prevalence of this textual ‘freedom’ especially in the formula-quotations suggests that Matthew was sometimes willing to modify the wording of the text in order to draw out more clearly for his readers the sense in which he perceived it to have been fulfilled in Jesus.”
Without knowledge of which source(s) Matthew used, one should tentatively turn to analyze how Matthew used those sources. Though scholars may never concretize the exact manuscript or book that Matthew quoted, his conceptual and lexical differences to the sources that do exist present further options. S. Vernon MacCasland wrote a brief article on Matthew’s use of the Old Testament, which he used as a foundation for Matthew’s general use of his sources (e.g., Mark, Q). Within his first two chapters, Matthew severely alters Jesus’ genealogy into three groups of fourteen generations. He then becomes the only New Testament author to reference Isaiah 7:14 in reference to Jesus’ birth, to mention Joseph and Mary’s flight to Egypt, and to use Hosea 11:1 in a very unique way. Though MacCasland makes no final conclusions, he indicates that Matthew felt not only capable but also permitted to “distort” his sources to serve his purposes. With relation to Isaiah 7:14, Matthew supposedly used this passage “to explain the mystery surrounding the personality of Jesus.” Though I would not phrase Matthew’s use of the Old Testament as “distortion,” I acknowledge different New Testament authors may have quoted or alluded to ancient texts in distinct ways. In Matthew’s case, he does seem to use them for a specific purpose, perhaps because of his Jewish audience or the need to validate Jesus’ Messianic claims with the Old Testament.
After reading Matthew’s account, one must answer the question, What does “all this” mean in verse twenty-two?Matthew closes the conversation between the angel and Josephwith the claim that “all this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet.” Is he referencing Joseph’s refusal to divorce Mary? Is Matthew thinking of a virgin conception, a general birth, a special name, or some sort of combination of all these things? When one considers the contexts of Isaiah 7 and Matthew 1, he will notice the apparent parallels. Both discuss the birth of a child to a woman and reference this child in connection with deliverance. Furthermore, Matthew was writing after he knew the truth of Jesus’ deity, and the notion that Jesus would “save people from sins” probably caused him to recognize the foretold divinity of Christ. Therefore, the phrase“God is with us” was relevant to Isaiah’s audience, but Christ actually embodied the divine presence.
Some argue that the “sign” in Isaiah must have been supernatural, and the correlation with Matthew’s gospel demands the “type” of language to include virgin conception. Elliott Johnson states, “A natural conception corresponds to a virgin conception only in that both are conceptions. In this interpreter’s judgment, the single textual meaning is violated in the two unrelated types of conception, natural and virgin.”Though I disagree with Johnson’s limitation on Isaiah’s “type” of language, his argument illustrates that Matthew’s phrase “all this” is significant in order to determine what parallels he is making. I believe Matthew recognized God’s real presence with His people, and the divine presence in the person of Jesus forms an inclusio in Matthew’s gospel (cf. 1:23; 28:20). In addition,the LXX term παρθένος made it abundantly clear to Matthew that Christ truly “fulfilled” Isaiah’s words in centuries past.
Matthew and Isaiah
Matthew’s use of Isaiah finds its validity in the concept of typology. Typological interpretation of the Old Testament is most common in Matthew’s gospel, and his “typological interest leads him rather to find patterns which will recur repeatedly throughout God’s dealings with His people.” When discussing typology in this sense, Bock indicates that the pattern usually escalates in subsequent events and “exceeds the initial event in importance.”
In Isaiah’s original, historical context, Ahaz’s fear demanded a “sign” that was relevant to him and his people. A purely future prophecy of Christ’s birth would have little significance to Ahaz. Instead, Isaiah pointed to a “young woman” who may have been a virgin at the time but surely not throughout the birthing process. Therefore, a common birth in that day would indicate God’s timetable in dealing with Judah’s enemies. However, the pattern reappeared in the first century when another “son” was born. This time, the woman truly was a παρθένος, a virgin that had never known a man. The pattern has escalated, in that the lexical range has narrowed to the point of human impossibility. Furthermore, the former child was named Immanuel as a representation of God’s presence with His people, whereas Christ fully embodied the divine. Again, the second pattern heightened the significance of the original. This concept of typology allows the reader to recognize how Matthew is reading the text.
The final question demands the interpreter to decide which specific typological category this discussion fits. Bock divides typological uses into two subcategories: one emphasizes the prophetic nature of the original event, and the other focuses on the typological “fulfillment” of the original wording. In the former, “the promise’s initial fulfillment is such that an expectation remains…The passage begs for and demands additional fulfillment.” Examples of this include Israel’s restoration in Isaiah 65–66 and the Day of the Lord imagery. The initial stages of fulfillment leave the audience begging for a heightened, ultimate fulfillment.
On the other hand, Bock designates TYPOLOGICAL-prophetic examples, in which the “prophecy” is not recognized as such until after its “fulfillment.” “Here the pattern is not anticipated by the language, but is seen once the decisive pattern occurs.” One example of this category is the Exodus motif found throughout Scripture. The deliverance of the Israelite slaves from Egypt served as a type for the nation’s return from Babylonian exile, and ultimate, spiritual deliverance came through Jesus Christ. However, nothing found in the Exodus narrative indicates Jesus would serve this role. The Old Testament does not indicate a future “fulfillment” is coming, but the reader can see God’s pattern emerge through the progress of revelation.
The final question, then, is whether Isaiah predicted a virgin birth centuries in advance or Matthew recognized God’s pattern of involvement and used Isaiah’s words as evidence of God’s sovereignty. I think the latter describes these passages more closely, but I recognize not all texts can be limited and defined by theoretical categories. I consider Isaiah to be primarily typological for two reasons. First, though no single argument in my original analysis of the historical context demands a near fulfillment of Isaiah 7, the combination of the terms, forms, and historical background seem to indicate a necessary birth in Ahaz’s day. If that were the case, a future birth as a sign of deliverance from Judah’s enemies of Syria and Israelwould not be needed.
The second reason I consider Isaiah not to be purely prophetic is that there was no need to posit a future birth of a child to a literal virgin. God could have revealed this stark biological impossibility to Isaiah, but the theology of a coming Messiah did not demand a virgin birth. No one expected the Messiah to be God in the flesh, but he was believed to becomeGod’s ultimate representative, to deliver Israel from her enemies, and to restore the physical kingdom. Without the expectation of a divine figure, a virgin birth was unnecessary.
An Opposing View: Kaiser and Beecher
Walter Kaiser follows Willis Beecher’s interpretation and argues that the larger context of Isaiah 7–12 allows the original prophecy to point towards one future Messianic birth. Beecher lays out the three “children” (Shear-jashub, Immanuel, Maher-shalal-hash-baz), noting both an opening prediction of a birth and a later explanation of the significance of that child. Shear-jashub is introduced in 7:3 but reappears in 10:20–22; 11:11, 16. Immanuel is predicted in 7:14 and 8:8, 10. Finally, Isaiah first mentions Maher-shalal-hash-baz in 8:1–4, and the full significance of his name is seen in 10:2, 6.
Beecher continues his argument by claiming the middle child is distinct, in that the announcement of his birth parallels previous births announced by special, divine revelation (e.g., Ishmael in Gen 16:11, 17; Samson in Judg 13:5, 7). Therefore, Beecher claims that Isaiah’s audience would have understood the special nature of this revelation, interpreting Isaiah’s prophecy as one of judgment against Ahaz but still one of divinefaithfulness in preserving the Davidic line. This child who fulfilled God’s promise would be “God with us” in a special way.
In his articles, Kaiser builds on Beecher’s argument to demonstrate how Matthew’s gospel is consistent with Isaiah’s prophecy to the point of true fulfillment. Kaiser uses Beecher’s “generic prediction” category to make his case. “A generic prediction is one which regards an event as occurring in a series of parts, separated by intervals, and expresses itself in language that may apply indifferently to the nearest part, or to the remoter parts, or to the whole—in other words, a prediction which, in applying to the whole of a complex event, also applies to some of its parts.” Kaiser illustrates this concept by showing the Antichrist’s first fulfillment in Antiochus Epiphanes and more examples in 1 John 2:18, but these foreshadow the ultimate, future Antichrist. In addition, Elijah came to announce the day of the Lord, and John the Baptist is called “Elijah,” (Matt 11:14; 17:11).
In this way, Kaiser’s explanation does not differ greatly from the concept of typology. The difference is that Kaiser divides the original prophecy between elements that are fulfilled in Isaiah’s day and those that came to be in Christ. He states, “The only critical point is that both share enough distinctive common elements so that a single sense and meaning links them and thereby the one heeding Scripture will be unerringly pointed towards the final fulfillment.” I would argue that the division of this prophecy into “near-fulfillment” elements and “distant fulfillment elements” is unstable. I am much more comfortable stating that the original meaning of the prophecy was fulfilled, but Matthew recognized that the pattern of fulfillment occurred again in Christ. In addition, the pattern not only occurred but also escalated in significance.
Indeed, certain prophecies can be split according to time (e.g., Isa 61 in Luke 4; Joel 2 in Acts 2). The difference between these texts and Isaiah 7 is that the prophet references the same event or individual, but the fulfillment is divided into stages, resulting in an “already/not yet” fulfillment. In Isaiah 61, for example, no one denies that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, yet the phenomenon and purpose of His two advents was not recognized until His resurrection and ascension. On the other hand, Kaiser attempts to divide Isaiah 7:14–17 based on the temporal aspect in addition to referent and significance. The child born in Isaiah (which he takes as Hezekiah) was a sign of God’s immediate blessing and coming destruction. However, “Immanuel” (which would only reference Jesus) fulfills the virgin birth prophecy, represents God’s full presence, and becomes the Davidic seed to preserve the royal line and establish God’s reign on the earth. I do not think Isaiah’s words can be so neatly divided.
Furthermore, in order for Kaiser and Beecher to demonstrate “same meaning” between Isaiah and Matthew, they link the children in Isaiah 7 and 9 (i.e., Immanuel and “Wonderful Counselor”). They hold that the promised child in Isaiah 7 serves as God’s preservation of the Davidic line, which allows them to link Isaiah 7:14 with 9:6. Without a doubt, some of Isaiah’s prophecies (including 9:6) point to a coming fulfillment of God’s promises to Eve, Abraham, Moses, andDavid. However, in Hirschian language, the type of this “child” is one who will become a representative of God’s reign over His kingdom. He will bring ultimate blessing, relief, and peace. In sum, he is the one responsible for the deliverance and restoration of Israel. Yet, Isaiah 7 references an entirely different type. This “child” is not responsible for anything. There is no mention of his governmental role, a priestly function, or a salvific purpose. Rather, the child belongs to the type of “sign.” He indicates that God’s immediate relief, yet ultimate judgment, is coming. Therefore, the appeal to Isaiah’s (and the Old Testament’s) full context does not support the view that Isaiah 7:14 explicitly expects a future, ultimate fulfillment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Matthew’s use of Isaiah can be described as typology based on not only the pattern involved in the two births but also the escalated fulfillment at the birth of Christ. When God communicated the “sign” to Isaiah originally, the type level of the prophecy enabled a completely immediate fulfillment. The human author probably did not foresee a virgin birthbecause of its impossibility and its irrelevance. The “sign” was fulfilled. He might have foreseen another baby in the future that would represent God’s presence, but no one expected a sinless Son of God. There was no need for a virgin birth. Yet, the type level of hm'l.[; included the token of παρθένος, a term which was used by the LXX translators. After the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ, Matthew was able to find these correlations, notice the typological pattern, and claim a fulfillment of the divine message at the ultimate level. In this case, God communicated with Isaiah, but that message contained lexical and referential possibilities that Matthew could connect. God obviously foreknew the miraculous birth of His Son, and His sovereign revelation to Isaiah allowed for a future, specific, and supernatural “fulfillment.” Therefore, I consider Matthew’s use of Isaiah to be an example of TYPOLOGICAL-prophetic, because God inspired Isaiah’s prophecy to be intentionally open for Matthew to use it in illustrating Jesus’ Messianic nature.
Bibliography
Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: University Press, 2003.
Beale, G. K., ed. The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?:Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.
Beecher, Willis J. “The Prophecy of the Virgin Mother: Isa vii.14.” Homiletical Review 17 (1889): 354–58.
———. The Prophets and the Promise. 1905. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963.
Berding, Kenneth, and Jonathan Lunde, eds. Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Counterpoints: Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. New American Commentary 22.Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
———. “Matthew.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.
Bock, Darrell. “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New: Part 1.” Bibliotheca sacra 142, no. 567 (1985): 209–223.
———. “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New: Part 2.” Bibliotheca sacra 142, no. 568 (1985): 306–319.
———. “Scripture Citing Scripture: Use of the Old Testament in the New.” In Interpreting the New Testament Text, edited by Darrell Bock and Buist Fanning, 255–276. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006.
Chilton, Bruce. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. Edited by Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara. The Aramaic Bible 11.Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987.
Chisholm, Robert B. From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1933.
Delling, Gerhard. “παρθένος.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Friedrich, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 5:826–37. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967.
Dohmen, C. “'almâ; 'elem.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, HelmerRinggren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, translated by David E. Green, 11:154–163. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Freedman, H., trans. The Midrash Rabbah. 5 vols. New York: Soncino, 1977.
Glenny, W. Edward. “The Divine Meaning of Scripture: Explanations and Limitations.” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 38, no. 4 (1995): 481–500.
Gordon, Cyrus H. “Almah in Isaiah 7:14.” Journal of Bible and Religion 21, no. 2 (1953): 106.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.
Hirsch, E. D. “Meaning and Significance Reinterpreted.” Critical Inquiry 11, no. 2 (1984): 202–225.
———. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.
Johnson, Elliott E. “Dual Authorship and the Single Intended Meaning of Scripture.” Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (1986): 218–27.
Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. 2nd ed. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Kaiser, Walter C. “The Promise of Isaiah 7:14 and the Single-Meaning Hermeneutic.” Evangelical Journal 6, no. 2 (1988): 55–70.
———. The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Kautzsch, E., ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd English ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910.
Koehler, Lugwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Johann Jakob Stamm. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1–7. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
MacCasland, S. Vernon. “Matthew Twists the Scriptures.” Journal of Biblical Literature 80, no. 2 (1961): 143–148.
Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.
Neusner, Jacob. Isaiah in Talmud and Midrash. 2 vols. Studies in Judaism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007.
———. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.
Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
Pratico, Gary D., and Miles V. Van Pelt. Basics of Biblical Hebrew: Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Smith, Gary V. Isaiah 1–39. The New American Commentary 15A. Nashville: Broadman and Hollman, 2007.
Waltke, Bruce K. “A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms.” In Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg, edited by John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, 3–18. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.
Waltke, Bruce, K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. Word Biblical Commentary 24.Waco: Word Books, 1985.
Watts, Rikk E. “Immanuel: Virgin Birth Proof Text or Programmatic Warning of Things to Come (Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23)?” In From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New, edited by Craig A. Evans, 92–113. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.
Young, Edward J. “The Immanuel Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14-16.” Westminster Theological Journal 16 (1953): 23–50.
Youngblood, Ronald. “A Response to Patrick Fairbairn and Biblical Hermeneutics as Related to the Quotations of the Old Testament in the New.” In Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, edited by Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, 779–88. Papers from ICBI Summit II. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Isaias. Septuaginta: Vetus testamentumgraecum 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1983.
No comments:
Post a Comment