I, M, and Immanuel
Part I. I(saiah): Spoken by the Prophet
The Gospel according to St Matthew
1.1 Historical Background
Around 735–733 BCE, during the reign of Pekah, King of Israel, and shortly after Ahaz had ascended the throne of Judah, the military empire of Assyria advanced southwards, attacking Phoenicia and Damascus. According to the Second Book of Kings,1 during Pekah's reign (which began around 752–750 BCE), the Assyrian king advanced into the territories west of the River Jordan and the Sea of Galilee, carrying away part of the population of Israel into captivity.
Perhaps fearing this formidable enemy from the north, Israel and Aram formed an alliance, known as the Syro-Ephraimite coalition, to resist Assyria together. Meanwhile,2 the king of Aram had seized Elath from Judah early in Ahaz's reign. Israel had also defeated Judah in battle, killing great numbers of its people.
Because of Judah's hostility towards the northern alliance,3 together with harassment from other neighbouring nations,4 Ahaz submitted to Assyria. He took considerable quantities of silver and gold from the Temple as tribute, and appealed to Assyria to attack the Syro-Ephraimite coalition.
The coalition, on the other hand, wished Judah to join it, so that the three kingdoms might resist Assyria together. Ahaz refused, leaving Judah the only power in Palestine which had not joined the alliance against Assyria. The Syro-Ephraimite coalition therefore marched south against Jerusalem, attempting to depose Ahaz and install an Aramean-controlled puppet ruler, the son of Tabeel, thereby completing their three-nation alliance.
According to Isaiah 7, the prophecy of Immanuel was given during this assault upon Jerusalem. With the city under siege and its inhabitants alarmed at every sign of danger, the Lord gave three signs to Ahaz and Judah.
1.2 Three Signs: Protection, Warning, Punishment, and Hope
The meaning of a 'sign' will be examined further in the discussion of Matthew. For the present, following the terminology of the Chinese Union Version, we shall refer to the three names and their four messages as three 'signs'.
The first sign is Isaiah's son, Shear-jashub, whose name means 'A remnant shall return', or possibly 'Only a remnant shall return'.
The Lord tells Ahaz that the northern coalition is no more than 'two tails of smoking firebrands': torches which produce smoke but no longer burn, or, as we might say, much thunder and little rain. They need not be feared. Ahaz is also told that unless he stands firm in faith, he shall not stand at all.5
This injunction to faith appears to mean6 that Ahaz should not enter into an alliance with Assyria.
There are several reasons for this interpretation. Ahaz had taken the silver and gold offered to Assyria from the Temple; moreover, submission to Assyria would almost inevitably involve the introduction of foreign gods. Such an introduction would itself constitute a failure to trust in the Lord.
The first sign receives no lengthy further explanation. We may therefore provisionally conclude that its message is that Ahaz should trust firmly in the Lord, who would protect Judah from being conquered by the northern coalition.
The Lord then gives a second sign: Immanuel, meaning 'God with us'. This sign foretells that, although the northern coalition need not be feared, Judah itself will subsequently face devastation after the coalition's destruction.
The message of this second sign appears to build upon the first, particularly the promised downfall of the northern alliance. It may have been given because Ahaz did not believe the first sign, or because the Lord wished to confirm it further.7
Two considerations support this interpretation.
First, before the prophecy is given, Ahaz is invited to ask for a sign. Yet a sign must signify something. At that point, the most immediate matter requiring confirmation would seem to be the promise associated with Shear-jashub. Immanuel may therefore be understood as a second sign belonging to the same prophecy.
Secondly, Ahaz had already sought assistance from Assyria. Having secured the support of that power, he naturally saw little need for any other help, and may therefore have failed to take the sign of Shear-jashub seriously.
The second sign thus extends the first. The Lord will still protect Judah from conquest by the Syro-Ephraimite coalition, but Assyria will subsequently attack and devastate Judah.
The prophecy indicates that, after Immanuel's birth, the northern coalition will have been destroyed. In this respect it agrees with the preceding sign. Yet the prophecy of Immanuel looks further ahead: Judah, like the northern coalition, will suffer Assyrian aggression.
The land will become so devastated that ordinary cultivation will no longer be possible, leaving the survivors to live upon curds and honey. The population will be so reduced that such food will be plentiful.89
Indeed, during Hezekiah's reign, Assyria besieged Jerusalem, although it ultimately failed to capture the city.
Thus, the promise of 'God with us' in the name Immanuel signifies not only the deliverance of Judah from complete destruction by the Syro-Ephraimite coalition, but also a warning of divine punishment yet to come.
Between the second and third signs appears the expression frequently found in Isaiah, 'in that day', introducing a series of predictions concerning the advance of Assyrian power. These appear to develop the message of the second sign, Immanuel.
The third sign is Maher-shalal-hash-baz, meaning 'Swift is the spoil, speedy is the prey'. Its meaning corresponds to the events foretold: conquest, captivity, and the seizure of people and possessions.
This sign again confirms the two preceding signs: the destruction of the northern coalition and the subsequent devastation of Judah. It also extends the prophecy to the future experiences of foreign nations.
Yet the name Immanuel reappears twice in this passage (Isaiah 8:8, 10): once in connection with the invasion of Judah, and once in connection with the Lord's judgement upon foreign peoples.
The third sign begins, like the others, with the downfall of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition. It then foretells the Assyrian assault upon Jerusalem. The repeated appearance of Immanuel in this context suggests that 'God with us' does not signify only peace and protection, but also the sterner realities of punishment and discipline.
Isaiah 8:8 may be understood as describing a great and fearsome bird spreading its wings over the whole land of Judah, representing the Lord's punishment through Assyria. Alternatively, the spreading wings may be interpreted as Immanuel's protection of Judah against the Assyrian invasion.
The former interpretation appears more consistent with the preceding context. The latter seems more readily to arise from an understanding of Immanuel as the Messiah.
An interpretation emphasising peace is not without justification. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the divine punishment described here is exceedingly severe.
Finally, in the poetic lines announcing judgement upon the foreign nations, the words 'God is with us' appear once more: Immanuel.10
Here the divine presence appears to signify the Lord's vindication of Judah and the persistence of hope for the future.
Since this occurrence of Immanuel stands somewhat apart from the three signs, it may be regarded as a fourth message, though not a fourth sign.
Perhaps its message to Israel is that, however tragic the outcome may be, all that happens remains under God's sovereignty. The punishment itself is governed by Him; and after punishment, if the people seize the opportunity to repent, hope for the future remains.
1.3 Immanuel: The Presence of God's Will
Seen in this light, the three signs are not three unrelated signs, but three stages in a developing message.
The first gives instruction: Shear-jashub, warning Ahaz not to enter into an alliance.
The second gives warning: Immanuel, foretelling the devastation of Judah's surrounding territories.
The third announces punishment: Maher-shalal-hash-baz, foretelling the advance of the Assyrian armies upon Jerusalem.
Finally comes the promise of future hope: Immanuel, 'God with us'.
This progression may have arisen because Ahaz failed to believe the first sign.
Of the three signs, however, Immanuel appears most frequently, and finally becomes a declaration of hope. Even amid the punishment visible before the people's eyes, 'God is with us'.
The meaning of this presence is far deeper than the comfort ordinarily associated with the expression.
God's presence does not bring peace alone. It includes punishment, protection, discipline, and hope.
It is not merely that God offers Judah His protection. Rather, God's will remains present with Judah: in the defence of the city, in military defeat, in the destruction of the kingdom, and in whatever future lies beyond.
This understanding of Immanuel will provide the basis for our discussion of Matthew's subsequent quotation of the prophecy.
Part II. M(atthew): A Virgin Shall Conceive
The Gospel according to St Matthew
2.1 The Question of Translation
The question of the virgin has long been a subject of vigorous debate, whether concerning the scientific impossibility of a virgin birth or the number of virgin births implied by Scripture.
The scientific question will not be examined here.
The question of number may be summarised as follows. Since conservative interpreters generally maintain that Mary alone was the recipient of the miraculous virgin birth, the virgin mentioned in Isaiah must, in their view, be Mary.
Yet this interpretation appears difficult to reconcile with the historical circumstances seven hundred years earlier. If the sign of Immanuel was intended to confirm the Lord's prophecy to Ahaz, surely it should have occurred during Ahaz's lifetime, rather than seven centuries afterwards.
We shall first consider the problem of translation, before returning to the number of virgin births.
Many biblical interpreters have discussed the Hebrew word ʿalmāh, which may be rendered 'virgin' or 'young woman of marriageable age'.
Its usage elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible has been examined in numerous books and articles. Since I am not proficient in the original languages, I do not propose to investigate the linguistic evidence in detail. Instead, I shall consider the history of its translation.
A recent article, however, appears to offer a plausible explanation which allows three propositions to be maintained together:
First, there was only one miraculous virgin birth: that of Jesus through Mary.
Secondly, the prophecy in Isaiah had an intelligible child named Immanuel within its own historical setting.
Thirdly, Jesus may be understood as Immanuel either through a historical application of the prophecy or through its fuller meaning, the sensus plenior.
The translation of 'virgin' has been particularly controversial.
In the middle of the twentieth century, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) rendered the word in Isaiah as 'young woman' rather than 'virgin'. Conservative Christians strongly opposed this translation, maintaining that 'virgin' was necessary to express the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth.
Perhaps because relatively few Chinese translations have adopted an equivalent of 'young woman'11, the controversy has not been equally prominent among Chinese-speaking Christians.
From a conservative perspective, of course, the miraculous character of Jesus' birth and God's participation in it must be preserved.
Yet if Isaiah is translated 'virgin', we appear to face two possibilities: either there were two virgin births, or Isaiah's prophecy remained unfulfilled for seven hundred years.
The former is generally rejected. The latter is acceptable to some conservative interpreters.
But if the other two children who serve as signs in Isaiah were born during Ahaz's reign, what grounds have we for supposing that Immanuel alone was to be born seven or eight hundred years later?
A careful examination may therefore suggest that another translation is more reasonable.
On the other hand, if the word is translated 'woman', or by some other expression which does not explicitly indicate virginity, then the birth of a child to a woman is hardly an extraordinary sign.
For conservatives who place particular emphasis upon Mary's virginity, such a translation may seem to open the door to challenges against the doctrine itself.
Nevertheless, many scholars now argue that biblical translation ought to remain faithful to the text rather than be governed by doctrinal theology.12
They therefore advocate recovering the original sense of Scripture.
Moreover, since Luke already contains an account of the virgin birth, translating Matthew's quotation as 'young woman', or in some other way, would not necessarily undermine the theological conviction that Jesus was born of a virgin.
Yet if Isaiah is translated 'young woman', how are we to understand Matthew?
Did Matthew alter the text arbitrarily? Or did he fail to compare different translations carefully?
It is clear that either translation raises questions which must be addressed. Otherwise, we either place the responsibility upon Matthew or allow doctrinal theology and biblical interpretation to remain in unresolved conflict.
As early as the 1950s, Gordon13 observed that the Septuagint's use of parthenos to translate the 'young woman' in Isaiah was entirely pre-Christian.
The translators of that period could hardly have known of the Christian account of the virgin birth, yet they nevertheless employed a word which later came to be understood as 'virgin'.
Matthew, therefore, cannot simply be accused of altering Scripture. He quoted the Greek translation as he received it.
Whatever Isaiah may originally have meant, Matthew adopted the interpretation available in the Septuagint.
Wenger, however, draws attention to changes in the meanings of words.
He argues that the Hebrew text of Isaiah referred to a young woman, and that the Greek term used in the Septuagint, translated in the second century BCE, could likewise refer to a young woman. Subsequently, however, the meaning of the Greek word became more specifically associated with virginity.
Thus, when Matthew wrote, he could quote the Septuagint faithfully without altering its wording, whilst the word had by then acquired the meaning 'virgin'.
Indeed, Matthew may not even have explicitly claimed that the words were Isaiah's.
2.2 They Shall Call His Name Emmanuel
Matthew quotes from the Hebrew Bible extensively, and his Gospel stands first among the four Gospels.
The first occurrence of what is commonly called a formula quotation in Matthew is found here.
Yet this quotation differs from many of Matthew's other quotations. Elsewhere, the formula quotation generally follows the narration of the event which it is said to fulfil.14
Here, however, it appears in the middle of the narrative. Verses 22–23 contain the quotation, but verses 24–25 seem still to belong to the account of the same event.15
By verse 24, what has occurred is, at most, Mary's conception, not the birth of the child. Her virginity, moreover, is not explicitly mentioned until verse 25.
Yet Matthew has already quoted the prophecy of a virgin bearing a son in verse 23.
Thus, although the quotation occurs near the end of the account, it is in fact inserted before the narrated event has been completed.
Menken also observes that some might understand Matthew as implying that Joseph, by obeying the angel, happened also to bring about the fulfilment of the prophecy.
This possibility deserves consideration, particularly the question of whether Joseph could be said to fulfil a prophecy.
Nevertheless, the impression given by Matthew's Gospel is rather that the author has inserted a quotation from the Prophets to emphasise Jesus' identity as the Messiah.
After all, many of Matthew's quotations appear to be editorial additions rather than words spoken by the characters within the narrative.
Yet since formula quotations generally follow the events they describe, we may also ask whether these words might have been spoken by the angel rather than inserted by Matthew.
If so, we must consider what is meant by 'all this'.
Does it refer to Joseph's dream? To the unmarried condition of Joseph and Mary? Or to the ancestry of Jesus?
It is difficult to decide.
The Chinese Union Version uses a relatively ambiguous expression, 'these things'. If this preserves the ambiguity of the original, it is a virtue.
The Chinese New Version, however, appears to place greater emphasis upon 'this whole matter', potentially extending the reference to the entire ancestry of Jesus, beginning with Abraham, as the fulfilment of the promise of Immanuel.
The quotation clearly does not refer simply to Joseph's dream.
In the dream, Joseph is commanded to name the child Jesus, 'for he shall save his people from their sins'.
The quoted prophecy, however, says that 'they shall call his name Emmanuel', not Jesus.
The other two possibilities deserve further consideration.
First, the birth of a child whilst Mary remained unmarried may be understood as the fulfilment of the reference to a virgin.
On this reading, the quotation belongs to the angel's words, reassuring Joseph that Mary's pregnancy is permitted by the Lord and that the child has been conceived through the Holy Spirit.
At that point, Joseph did not yet know that Jesus was the Son of God.
If so, what he expected may not have been the miracle of a virgin birth, but a son promised by God, as in the cases of Isaac and Samuel.
The angel must therefore explain that the child conceived by Mary is from the Holy Spirit and is destined to fulfil God's saving purpose.
There is nothing inherently impossible about this interpretation.
The angel's failure explicitly to call Jesus the Son of God does not imply that Jesus was not understood to be the Son of God.
Perhaps, from Joseph's perspective, if God could enable a barren woman to bear a child, the birth of a child to a virgin was not beyond His power.
The crucial point was that the child came from the Holy Spirit and would save His people, thereby fulfilling Immanuel.
This interpretation therefore has its merits.
Secondly, 'all this' or 'this whole matter' may be understood to include the genealogy beginning with Abraham.
On this reading, the three groups of fourteen generations must be considered together, and the genealogy understood in relation to the promises made by the Lord to Abraham and David.
If this is the intended meaning, the quotation must be an editorial addition by Matthew, since the angel says nothing about Abraham or the earlier ancestors.
We may assume that Joseph believed the angel and would not put Mary away, whether or not the angel's words were supported by a quotation from Scripture.
Yet if the quotation is Matthew's own commentary, it might seem more natural to place it after Joseph had obeyed the Lord's command, as happens with other formula quotations.
In other words, it might have been more appropriate after the account of Joseph awakening from his dream.
Nevertheless, the existing arrangement can also be understood.
Verses 24 onwards may be regarded as something of an epilogue, whilst verse 23 concludes Matthew's presentation of God's promises from Abraham onwards.
On this reading, the emphasis falls upon Immanuel, understood in the sense discussed in the preceding section: God's presence throughout the forty-two generations.
Both interpretations of 'all this' therefore have reasonable grounds, and neither can easily be dismissed.
After this extended discussion, we remain uncertain about the precise meaning of 'virgin' and the referent of 'all this'.
The matter is as complex as the question of the virgin birth itself.
The first interpretation understands Immanuel as a promise of redemption awaiting fulfilment.
The second understands Immanuel as the continuing presence of God throughout the course of history.
We shall now consider the significance of these possibilities.
2.3 The Assurance of Hope
Matthew declares that Jesus is called Emmanuel. In terms of the historical event itself, however, this appears to have been a temporary form of God's presence.
Jesus was indeed born into the world and lived among human beings. Whatever questions may be raised concerning His genealogy or the virgin birth, His earthly life was undoubtedly a realisation of Immanuel.
Yet Jesus ascended into heaven some two thousand years ago.
Although He promised to return, the form of Immanuel in which God lived alongside human beings was, in a concrete sense, suspended after His ascension.
We may still recognise other forms of Immanuel: God's word, His promises, and His providential care remain with humanity.
Yet these are not the same as God becoming human, living, eating, and sleeping among us.
Believers await the Lord's return and the coming of the 'ultimate' Immanuel. For those living today, however, Immanuel in the form of the Incarnation is not present within our immediate time and space.
It is a historical event, but one distant from us.
We must therefore ask: what meaning does Immanuel still hold for us? And what does the birth of Jesus mean?
Put simply, believers are able to hope for the 'ultimate' Immanuel at Christ's return because Matthew provides grounds for that hope.
Suppose we are told that a certain person will visit us next week. We do not know him, and he has never visited us before.
How confidently could we expect him to arrive?
We know nothing of his trustworthiness.
Whatever faith we may possess, we cannot reasonably believe a future event without any grounds whatsoever, much less sincerely hope for it.
The Incarnation, however, becomes the assurance upon which hope for the ultimate Immanuel rests.
Jesus has already come. His deeds have been recorded and remembered.
These provide grounds for believers to await His return and for the Church to continue its life and work.
Thus, for us today, the first interpretation concerns something not yet fully realised, something for which we continue to hope.
The second provides the assurance which enables us to hope for the fulfilment of the first.
Part III. Immanuel: God with Us
The Gospel according to St Matthew
3.1 This Shall Be a Sign unto You
Both Isaiah and Matthew remind us that Immanuel means 'God with us'.
More precisely, Immanuel does not mean 'joy with us' or 'peace with us'.
God's presence can certainly bring joy and peace, but these are not the most important things.
What matters most is that God Himself is with us.
Consider the relationship between children and their parents.
A child may desire toys or sweets above all else, yet what matters most is the presence and companionship of the parent.
Such companionship may bring correction and discipline, perhaps even severe punishment. The parent may give the child a chess set rather than a games console.
Nevertheless, we understand that the parent's presence matters more than rewards or toys.
In the first part, we considered the possibility that Immanuel in Isaiah 8 is represented by a great bird of prey, spreading its wings in search of food, just as foreign armies trample the land of Canaan.
This is divine punishment. Yet it also declares to Israel that God is present.
The Gospel proclaimed today is a Gospel of peace and joy. Nevertheless, we must not forget that discipline, too, forms part of the Gospel.
By the Second Temple period, despite a brief restoration of the kingdom, God's chosen people had once again fallen under foreign rule.
Life under foreign domination appears to have been little better than it had been during the days of the southern kingdom.
The hope brought by Jesus was likewise the hope of God with us.
It did not immediately bring peace and joy to everyone. Indeed, some were killed because of Him, as were the infants of Bethlehem, whilst others, such as the religious leaders, were rebuked.
If God is with us, then God must necessarily exist.
In this sense, God's presence is also a manifestation of God's existence.
Christians hope for the return of Jesus. Yet His return presupposes that He has already come.
Thus, in the sign of Jesus as Immanuel, two things are given to humanity: God's existence, which makes the fulfilment of hope possible, and God's presence with us, which manifests that possibility.
3.2 Immanuel amid Oppression
Many Hong Kong people will still vividly remember Harcourt Road during the Umbrella Movement of 2014, filled with drifting tear gas.
Yet the people of God in the age of the kingdoms were hardly better situated than we are today.
Oppression by great powers has never truly disappeared since the days of Moses.
A small kingdom confronted by armies from the north could do little but await the assault which might bring about its destruction.
Like Hong Kong today, facing pressure on many fronts from a powerful northern authority, we continue to ask the question associated with Isaiah's Jerusalem: 'Watchman, what of the night?'
The threatening sounds from the northern power do not cease, and the small territory to the south can scarcely relax for a moment.
The hope which Immanuel gave to the southern kingdom resembles the hope with which we await the coming of God's Kingdom today.
We hold fast to little more than a faint trace which gives us reason to hope, looking towards a vast and uncertain future whilst the armies of another power advance upon us.
In December 2017, Hong Kong's Legislative Council amended its Rules of Procedure, substantially weakening its powers. Following the amendments, the legislature moved still closer to becoming a rubber stamp for the authorities.
Before New Year's Eve, the arrangements for co-location of immigration and customs facilities again caused public unease, since they would allow mainland Chinese law to be enforced upon Hong Kong soil.
For Hong Kong people, this Christmas was one of apprehension, when every rustle seemed to herald danger.
Like the people of Judah, and like the infants of Bethlehem, we faced the darkness of night without knowing when the armies might arrive.
Immanuel is not merely peace.
Yet the hope of Immanuel continues to remind us that God exists, that God is with us, and that He has already come among us.
We may therefore hope for the day when the Lord returns to distinguish the righteous from the wicked.
We may pray with reason and confidence that God's will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
As the hymn of the American Civil War reminds us, God's justice will surely come, and good and evil shall be distinguished.
3.3 Hope, Justice, and the Life of the Church
As discussed in the first part, Immanuel signifies God's presence with us, encompassing not only His preservation but also His discipline and punishment.
Love cannot come without justice.
Discipline and punishment are fearful things. Yet even so, the people of God continue to await them, because they too belong to God's presence.
Only the unrighteous cannot welcome the coming of discipline and punishment, for the severest judgement awaits them.
If this is so, the prophecy was fulfilled once through a child born during Ahaz's reign, and again through the birth of Jesus, whose earthly life gave humanity a foretaste of God's presence.
Likewise, God's people need not place their trust in Syria, Ephraim, Egypt, Assyria, or the Roman Empire. Still less should they enter into alliances with such powers and become complicit in their wrongdoing.
The people of God have scarcely known a day of undisturbed peace.
The southern kingdom watched as great armies advanced upon it. The early Church faced persecution from Jewish and Roman authorities. Today, Christians in various parts of the world continue to face pressure from atheistic regimes.
Yet the people of God hold fast to this hope, not in order to confront wicked political powers passively whilst waiting for the last day.
Rather, even under oppression, as though living in a state of battle, they must continue actively to practise love and justice.
They must pass the small flame to a new generation, bringing more people into this company of those who struggle faithfully.
Towards earthly rulers, they need only affirm what is right and reject what is wrong. They must not become complicit in wrongdoing, nor should the Church itself become an earthly political power.
Only by holding fast to hope can believers, through the fellowship of the Holy Spirit and the communion of saints, sustain one another in mutual dependence.
At the same time, they must receive and nurture those who turn to the faith, whilst resisting evil at the very gates of the Church.
Thus, throughout the ages, the saints have held fast to the sign of Immanuel.
Beneath the modest shelter of the Church, they await the Lord's return whilst passing their small flame to those who will take up the struggle after them, waiting for the day when God's will shall be done upon earth.
---
First draft from 2013. Completed in December 2017. Ideas incoporated into Revisiting the First Christmas.
1 2 Kings 15:29. ⇑
2 2 Kings 16:6ff. ⇑
3 Ibid. ⇑
4 2 Chronicles 28:16. ⇑
5 Isaiah 7:9. The Hebrew words translated 'believe' and 'be established' are closely related. ⇑
6 W. R. Harper, 'The Child Prophecies of Isaiah', The Biblical World, vol. 8 (1896), pp. 417–422. ⇑
7 Isaiah 7:10. ⇑
8 See also Isaiah 7:22. ⇑
9 For the interpretation of Isaiah 7:15–17, see G. Rice, 'The Interpretation of Isaiah 7:15–17', Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96 (1977), pp. 363–369. ⇑
10 Some older commentaries overlook the occurrence of 'God is with us' in Isaiah 8:10. An example is the commentary on Matthew in G. Campbell Morgan's series. ⇑
11 For example, Lü Zhenzhong's translation. Major Chinese versions, including the Chinese Union Version and the Chinese New Version, retain 'virgin'. ⇑
12 See P. Wenger, 'How Many Virgin Births Are in the Bible?', Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 54 (2011), pp. 467–484; and Choi Ting-pong, 'The ʿAlmāh in Isaiah 7:14: Virgin or Young Woman?', Hong Kong Theological Seminary Newsletter, no. 80 (2005). Both acknowledge that 'young woman' is at least preferable in Isaiah 7:14. ⇑
13 C. H. Gordon, 'ʿAlmah in Isaiah 7:14', Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 11 (1953), p. 106. ⇑
14 For example, Matthew 2:17–18; 2:23; 8:17. ⇑
15 See M. J. J. Menken, 'The Textual Form of the Quotation from Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23', Novum Testamentum, vol. 43 (2001), pp. 144–160. I have some reservations about Menken's treatment of Matthew 2:15 as a quotation placed after the narrated event, since that passage does not follow a strictly chronological sequence. Nevertheless, his general observation remains reasonable: most formula quotations occur after the events narrated. His article also discusses extensively the textual form of Isaiah used by Matthew, but since the argument depends heavily upon the original languages, I shall not attempt to evaluate it here. ⇑