Hardening pharaoh’s heart

From Greg Beale's Redemptive Reversals and the Ironic Overturning of Human Wisdom:

A Preincarnate Hitler

The pharaoh of ancient Egypt is one of the best examples of ironic judgment, since in great arrogance he hotly pursued afflicted Israel but was "caught in the plots which [he had] devised" (Ps. 10:2). Pharaoh's first mistake was to claim to be God. He gave to himself such titles as "savior of Egypt," "Lord of the living," "Universal god," and the sovereign "god of heaven and earth." As such he was also held to be the divine judge after death.⁴ This is, no doubt, why Pharaoh responds to Moses's message that begins, "Thus says the Lord" (Ex. 5:1), with an equally authoritative, "Thus says Pharaoh" (Ex. 5:10). But, indeed, such a divine claim was farthest from the truth since, ironically, Scripture identifies the pharaoh of the exodus with Satan, "the dragon" (Isa. 51:9; cf. Ps. 74:13–14 and Rev. 12:3–4, 7–9), and the "sea monster" (Ps. 89:10; cf. also Ps. 87:4; Isa. 30:7; Ezek. 32:2). Pharaoh's obstinate claim to deity, even in spite of the plagues that came upon him in Exodus 7–13, was the reason for his judgment.

Pharaoh's mistaken belief in his divine sovereignty must have led him to issue the edict that the firstborn males of Israel were to be killed by the Hebrew midwives (Ex. 1:16), and when this failed, he ordered the firstborn to be drowned in a river (Ex. 1:22). Not only did Pharaoh's attempts to overcome Israel fail, but his edicts declaring the killing of the firstborn were providentially reversed so that they fell on him in judgment. Not only did God kill the firstborn of every Egyptian family (Ex. 12:29), but he also drowned Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea (Ex. 15:1–12). His sins came back on his own head, since he was punished ironically by the very things he perpetrated against Israel.

No Truth and No Consequences

Before we leave this discussion of Pharaoh, it is further enlightening to understand his role as the purported savior of those who died and faced imminent judgment. The Egyptians believed that after death, people had to go through a trial in the Hall of Judgment to determine whether they were guilty of earthly sin. If found innocent, a person inherited eternal bliss, but if found guilty, he or she suffered judgment. There were two parts to this judgment process. (1) The deceased person arrived at one end of the Hall of Judgment and was presented with a long list of sins characteristic of human life, which he or she categorically denied. (2) While the denial of sin was taking place, the deceased's heart was being weighed on the "scales of judgment" at the other end of the hall in order to see if its testimony supported the person's denial. The Egyptians believed that all people are sinful and that the heart would tell the truth if it were separated from the bad influence of the body, so when the heart confessed the deceased's sins, it would become "heavy" with sin, and the disequilibrium of the scales would indicate guilt and judgment. Therefore, the heart's confession of sin would demonstrate that the deceased's denial was a lie, with the result of impending judgment.

Since the Egyptians believed in the universal sinfulness of humanity, it seems that no Egyptian had a chance for salvation. This was a tremendous theological dilemma. However, the Egyptians also believed that the heart could be stopped from naturally confessing sin so that salvation could still be possible. This was thought to be accomplished by placing a stone scarab beetle, shaped in the form of a heart, either in the mummified clothes encasing the deceased or tied to the chest. The scarab beetle was a symbol of the sun god, of whom Pharaoh was viewed as the incarnation, and they thought it had magical powers to suppress the heart's tendency to confess sin so that salvation could be secured. Thus it was actually the magical power of the divine Pharaoh that imposed this silence upon the heart and was responsible for the individual's salvation.

There were various magical spells written on the stone scarab heart to bring about the silence of the human heart. The magical power of the sun god (and Pharaoh) was believed to transfer the stillness of the stone heart to the deceased so that the heart's movements to confess sin would be transformed into the stonelike stillness of silence. This suppression of the heart's confession apparently came to be seen as a kind of "hardening of the heart."⁵

Could this immoral Egyptian concept of salvation through "hardening of the heart" be the background against which to understand the Lord's hardening of Pharaoh's heart? Moses repeatedly commanded Pharaoh to let the people go, but God repeatedly hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not release Israel. But perhaps this was not the only purpose of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Whereas the pharaoh's magical hardening caused a nonconfession of sin and an apparent sinless heart, resulting in salvation, the Lord's hardening of Pharaoh's heart appears to have led to his own heart confessing sin (cf. Ex. 9:27, 34; 10:16–17) and acknowledging his sinfully heavy condition, resulting in judgment (cf. Ex. 14:4, 17–28). Whereas Pharaoh's hardening the hearts of others falsely suppressed sin, the Lord's hardening of Pharaoh's heart rightly revealed the monarch's sin.

The Lord's hardening of Pharaoh's heart may have been intended, in part, to show that the Egyptian way of salvation is a sham and was really the very opposite—a way of damnation. In fact, is it not interesting that the dead Pharaoh was the only Egyptian who did not have to go through the judgment process, but now, more than any other Egyptian in the exodus narrative, he is the focus of God's hardening judgment? It is probably no coincidence that one of the Hebrew words used for the Lord's hardening of Pharaoh means "to make heavy." Ironically, the pharaoh who claimed to remove the sinful heaviness of others' hearts could not remove his own. The pharaoh himself had now "been weighed on the scales and found deficient" (Dan. 5:27) and awaited impending judgment at the Red Sea. Pharaoh's heart became literally like the stone heart that symbolized his power and ironically caused him to be hard and insensitive to God's commands, which led to his destruction. Because of his stone heart, he sank like a stone in the Red Sea.

---

⁴ For a background of Pharaoh's divine names and functions consult I. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1967); S. Morenz, Egyptian Religion (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1960); E. L. R. Meyerowitz, The Divine Kingship in Ghana and Ancient Egypt (London: Faber & Faber, 1960); H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948).

⁵ For an argument supporting this contention see A. Hermann, “Das Steinhartes Herz,” in Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 4 (Münster: Aschendorff’sche, 1961), 102–5. I have also argued this in my "The Exodus Hardening Motif of Yahweh as a Polemic," ThM Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary (1976), 48–52.

Studies in Semitic vocalization

Niche, but in case someone might be interested:

FREE >700-pages from @CambridgeUP, includes contributions from @pd_myers @bnuyaminim @dorotamolin @K_L_Phillips https://t.co/GxKlxqn7J4 pic.twitter.com/EPDjdc1Wlj

— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) June 2, 2020

OT apocrypha

Catholics argue the deuterocanonical books should be included in the canon of Scripture. However that has significant flaws:

1. The Jews didn't consider these books on par with Scripture. The Hebrew canon doesn't include the deuterocanonical books.

Some argue the Jews only canonized the Hebrew Bible at the Council of Yavneh. However, from what I've read, that's hotly disputed by scholars. It's far from established fact.

However, even if it were true, the question parallels questions over the NT as canon. For instance, did the Jews/church decide what should be canonical or did the Jews/church recognize what was already recognized as canonical? For another, why would pious Jews/Christians need an authority (e.g. council) to decide what they could already know from studying the Scriptures and using their own God-given reason?

2. There are fragments and portions of some deuterocanonical books in the Dead Sea scrolls (DSS), but the DSS contain plenty of literature that even Catholics wouldn't consider inspired (e.g. the War scroll, Pesher Habakkuk). So the inclusion of some deuterocanonical books in the DSS doesn't imply anything one way or the other about the deuterocanonical books in general.

Similarly, Codex Sinaiticus contains the deuterocanonical books, but it also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Catholics don't accept these latter works as canonical.

3. The deuterocanonical books themselves suggest prophecies had ceased in their day. For example, 1 Macc 4:41-46 records:

Then Judas detailed men to fight against those in the citadel until he had cleansed the sanctuary. He chose blameless priests devoted to the law, and they cleansed the sanctuary and removed the defiled stones to an unclean place. They deliberated what to do about the altar of burnt offering, which had been profaned. And they thought it best to tear it down, so that it would not be a lasting shame to them that the Gentiles had defiled it. So they tore down the altar, and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until a prophet should come to tell what to do with them.

In addition, the Prologue to Sirach suggests its author doesn't even consider Sirach to be Scripture inasmuch as he draws a distinction between the two.

4. If the deuterocanonical books should be part of the biblical canon, which deuterocanonical books? Whose version? The Eastern Orthodox differ from Catholics (e.g. Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh). Likewise, what about the deuterocanonical books of the Oriental Orthodox churches? What about the deuterocanonical of the Assyrian churches?

5. If we accept the OT apocrypha, then why not accept the NT apocrypha - at least some of the books? Couldn't one argue some of the apocryphal gospels deserve inclusion in the biblical canon?

6. To my knowledge, Catholics didn't officially include the deuterocanonical books in the biblical canon until the Council of Trent. However, wasn't this decided by a plurality vote with many Catholic bishops on the council either dissenting or abstaining from voting? If the deuterocanonical books are Scripture, then why would so many Catholic bishops fail to see that? And what about Catholic bishops who weren't in attendance?

Also, if it's possible for the deuterocanonical books not to have been officially recognized as part of the biblical canon until Trent, even though the deuterocanonical books had always been part of the canon, then why would Trent be needed in the first place? Just to rubber stamp it? Yet how many Christians throughout church history until Trent even thought all the deuterocanonical books were inspired and on par with Scripture?

7. Perhaps Catholics would respond there is a long history of church fathers who thought so. Church tradition has established it to be the case. Church fathers like Clement of Alexandra, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine believed the deuterocanonical books were inspired. For one thing, there's nothing necessarily sacrosanct about church fathers and church tradition. Church fathers have made plenty of mistakes. For example, some church fathers quote the Sibylline oracles, but that hardly means the sibyls were inspired by God.

8. At best, the church fathers who held the position that the deuterocanonical books are Scripture held it because they were following the Septuagint (LXX). Of course, this should be offset by the evidence of and from the Hebrew canon.

Moreover, consider Peter Williams' lecture "Why I don't believe in the Septuagint". As Williams points out, there's not a single homogeneous LXX. A first century Jew or Christian wouldn't have necessarily considered the LXX a single unified body of work. Rather, they might've just regarded them as disparate Greek translations of this or that book of the Hebrew Bible.

Perhaps like how we might see there are various English translations of the Bible (e.g. ESV, NIV, CSB, KJV, RSV, Phillips' NT, Lattimore's NT, NASB, NRSV, NLT, CEV, NET, Geneva Bible, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Douay-Rheims, NAB, NJB, JPS), but we wouldn't necessarily categorize all these translations under a single monolithic category called "The English Translation" (TET).

Blessed or happy in Psalm 1

Bruce Waltke on translating the first word of Psalm 1 as "happy" or "blessed":

So the word "blessed" - what does that mean? Many moderns translate it "happy". I think that's inadequate. I don't think we have a word for it.

But I point out in Hebrew that there are two different words for "bless"...So you have barak which means "to bless", and then you have this word ashrei.

The word barak means "to be filled with the potency for life". It's the ability to reproduce. So that when God blessed the creation, it was to be fruitful and multiply. Now when you carry that over to the NT, Jesus blessed the disciples. He himself never married. He's not saying to them be fruitful and multiply physically, but be fruitful and multiply spiritually. It's a different form of the kingdom. So that's the word "to bless", barak.

Now the other "to bless" is ashrei. The word used here [in Psalm 1:1]. And that word ashrei means that you have a blessed destiny. It usually refers to the future. And that future, that blessed future, is based upon your present relationship with God. The blessed person when you use ashrei may be in deep trouble at the time...This is a quote from Eliphaz in the book of Job. This would be the Greek equivalent of ashrei - makarios. He says "Blessed is the one whom God corrects". We don't think a person who is being disciplined is particularly blessed, but that's a blessed person. "Blessed is the one whom God corrects, so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty, for he wounds, but he also binds up; he injures, but his hands also heal" [Job 5:17-18]. You have a blessed future. So be thankful that you're a blessed person because God is disciplining you to give you the celestial city. You see how that's different from the word "fill you with potency with life and victory"? It's a different word.

Or another illustration is from the Greek of the Beatitudes of Jesus. Who are the blessed? It's not the way we normally think of it. "Blessed - makarioi, plural - are those who mourn, for they will be comforted...Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you...Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven..." (Mt 5:4, 10-12). So the blessed person is a person who has this great reward in the future. That is not translated by "happy". It's totally inadequate for that. I agree the average person doesn't understand it always, but I think it carries more than just being happy.

Isaiah 7:14

Virgin Birth (Isa. 7:14)

Wegner states, "There is little doubt that Isa. 7:14 and its reuse in Matt. 1:23 is one of the most difficult problems for modern scholars."⁶⁷ This stems from a growing amount of evangelicals who question whether Isaiah 7:14 prophesies about a virgin birth. To be clear, these scholars acknowledges that Jesus was certainly born of a virgin as Matthew states (1:23). However, did Isaiah intend for that idea originally? Is there any movement from Old Testament to New Testament in this case?

Arguments against a messianic interpretation of the text appeal to three major pieces of evidence. First, the historical setting of Isaiah 7 seems to demand Isaiah's sign relate to the current circumstances. Isaiah 7 opens discussing how Ephraim and Aram are placing political and military pressure upon the southern kingdom (vv. 1-2).⁶⁸ The discussion of the sign responds to that situation (vv. 3-14). This suggests it deals with something in the present and not future. Second, the wording of the sign implies this. Isaiah relates Immanuel's birth with the collapse of the kings of Ephraim and Aram (v. 15). That seems to say the sign relates to the current crisis.⁶⁹ Third, later development of the sign in Isaiah seems to support this interpretation. In the very next chapter, Isaiah describes the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in terms quite similar to [the] birth Immanuel (Isa. 8:4; cf. Isa. 7:16). Maher-shalal-hash-baz explicitly deals with the current situation of Ephraim and Aram (Isa. 8:4-8). That appears to confirm Isaiah intended the sign be fulfilled int he current time. Immanuel is a sign of the enemy's destruction and thereby Judah's deliverance.⁷⁰

These arguments are admittedly compelling and make it seem that this is simply all the text discusses. However, several factors show there may be more involved. Like other prophets, Isaiah's mentality in this text does not merely focus on the present but the future:

1. The context of Isaiah 7 shows Isaiah's redemptive historical awareness. Isaiah 7 is not the first chapter of the book. The previous chapters have set up important concepts and issues Isaiah 7 addresses. This revolves around how God will send Israel into exile because of their sin (5:26-30) but will reverse this in the end with a glorious kingdom (2:1-4; 4:2-6). Isaiah's call reiterates this paradigm. His job is to proclaim Israel's condemnation (Isa. 6:8-12) so that in the end, they will be made holy (Isa. 6:13).⁷¹ Isaiah's mission is one that connects present with the eschatological. Isaiah 7 is not in a vacuum. Its context suggests the present situation discussed relates to something greater.

2. The immediate context exhibits this very perspective. Isaiah meets Ahaz with his son, Shear-Jashub, whose name means "the remnant will return" (7:3).⁷² The language is used earlier in Isaiah (cf. 1:26, 27; 4:3) showing the situation in Isaiah 7 is not just about the present but God's greater agenda of exile and restoration.⁷³ Likewise, Isaiah's use of the "house of David" evidences Isaiah believed the current situation was a threat not only to Ahaz but the entire Davidic dynasty (7:2).⁷⁴ Interestingly enough, the threat against the Davidic dynasty is the immediate context and concern of the sign (7:13). Again, the immediate context of Isaiah 7 does not merely describe a historical situation but one situated in a larger plan. Isaiah is not just speaking to the present situation.

3. The grammar of the sign indicates this. As discussed, some have interpreted Isaiah 7:14-15 to say the child is a sign that the northern kingdom and Aram will be defeated. The language makes mention of the present situation for sure. However, that is not precisely what Isaiah says. Notice, the wording states the son will eat curds and honey (v. 15) because (כִּי) before the child is old enough to choose between good and evil, the kings' lands will be desolate (v. 16). Technically, the resolution of the conflict with Ephraim and Aram is not the content or purpose of the sign but rather the reason the sign occurs the way it does.⁷⁵ It answers the question "why does Immanuel eat curds and honey, the food of poverty?" (cf. 7:22), as opposed to "what is the significance of Isaiah's sign?" Hence, to say Immanuel is a sign for Israel's present deliverance is not grammatically correct. Rather, the present circumstances will cause the tragic circumstances surrounding Immanuel's birth and childhood. Again, the present connect with the future.⁷⁶

4. Understanding this helps make sense of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8. As discussed, some scholars parallel Maher-shalal-hash-baz with Immanuel. Indeed, in Isaiah 8:4, Maher-shalal-hash-baz signifies the upcoming desolation of Ephraim and Aram as predicted in Isaiah 7:16. That is the child's prophetic purpose. However, we just observed such desolation is not the purpose of the sign of Immanuel. In Isaiah 7:16, the desolation of those kingdoms explains why Immanuel will be born in poverty and not what Immanuel is all about. Accordingly, Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Immanuel do not share the same purpose. They relate, but are not the same sign. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the sign that the harsh circumstances surrounding the Messiah's birth will take place. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is near the prophecy that confirms one in the more distant future (Immanuel's birth in exile). Kidner's observation (reiterated by Motyer) sums this up nicely:

   The sign of Immanuel . . . although it concerned ultimate events, did imply a pledge for the immediate future in that however soon Immanuel were born, the present threat would have passed before he would even be aware of it. But the time of his birth was undisclosed; hence the new sign is given to deal only with the contemporary scence.⁷⁷

5. The rest of Isaiah 8 further supports that Immanuel is not Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Isaiah's wife does not name the child contrary to what is prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Isa. 8:3; Luke 1:31). Isaiah also records how Immanuel will ultimately triumph over Judah's enemies and end exile (Isa. 8:10). Based upon this, Immanuel seems to be different than Maher-shalal-hash-baz. After all, the latter never delivers Judah from its enemies. Thus, Isaiah differentiates Immanuel from Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

6. Isaiah 8 also affirms the logic we observed in Isaiah 7:14-16. It describes how the Assyrian invasion will desolate Aram and Ephraim. However, it also discusses how the invasion will flood Judah, the "land of Immanuel" (8:5-8). If Immanuel is a sign that Israel's enemies will be destroyed resulting in Judah's salvation, why does Isaiah 8 state the opposite result occurs? Instead, the description in Isaiah 8 fits with what I have suggested above. Isaiah 7 prophesies Immanuel would live in poverty because of the present circumstances. Isaiah 8 states the desolation of the Judah's enemies would lead to Judah's own desolation and so Immanuel will be born in exilic conditions.

7. The rest of Isaiah 8-11 reinforces a messianic perspective to Isaiah 7:14. At the end of Isaiah 8, the prophet describes how Israel and its king will collapse in darkness (8:21-22).⁷⁸ However, from that darkness a light will come (9:1-2 [Heb., 8:23-9:1]) based upon the birth of a child (v. 6 [Heb., v. 5]) who bears the authority of God upon his shoulders. This messianic individual in Isaiah 9:6 (Heb., v. 5) corresponds with Isaiah 7:14.⁷⁹ Both record the birth and naming of a child associated with God's presence ("God with us" versus "Mighty God"). Both discuss how a child is born in exile and trial. Both texts ensure the security of the Davidic dynasty by virtue of the child's birth. With such parallels, Isaiah arguably equates his prophecy in 7:14 with the messianic figure in 9:6 (Heb., 9:5). This reinforces a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah 11 also reiterates this. That chapter introduces a child-deliverer (Isa. 11:2) whose dominion is at the culmination of history (11:9-12).⁸⁰ With that, Isaiah 11 repeats the same pattern of a royal child born who secures ultimate deliverance and reign. The similarities and pattern argue that Isaiah tied all of these texts together. Isaiah shows how the Son born of a virgin in exile (Isa. 7:14) is the Son/Child who will conquer the exile (9:6 [Heb., v. 5]) and ultimately restore the world (11:1-12). Again, later texts reinforce Isaiah 7:14 is not just about the present but the future.

These factors illustrate what we have observed in this chapter. Isaiah did know complex theological concepts like the Messiah. His writing develops that idea (Isa. 9:6 [Heb., v. 5]; 11:2) which clarifies the nature of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah also did not strictly write about his current situation but had in mind how the present relates to the future. Hence, he talks about how the current crisis relates to the sign of the ultimate deliverance and security for the Davidic dynasty (Immanuel). He writes with greater complexity than we might originally anticipate.

One factor remains. Intertextuality not only helps us to see Isaiah's directionality but also his theological depth. This relates to the sign itself, the virgin birth. One might ask how the sign of a young woman (rightly assumed to be a virgin) giving birth participates in Isaiah's theological agenda.⁸¹ Scholars have consistently wondered about this reality.⁸² Intertextuality can aid in this discussion. The phrase "conceive and give birth" (יֹלֶ֣דֶ + הָרָה֙) is actually a formula reiterated in the canon. The formula applies to individuals including Eve (Gen. 4:1), Hagar (16:11), Sarah (21:2), Jochebed (Ex. 2:2), the mother of Samson (Judg. 13:5), and Hannah (1 Sam. 1:20).⁸³ Ruth is a close parallel (4:10).⁸⁴ The births are often miraculous because God overcomes barrenness (Judg. 13:5; 1 Sam. 1:20) or provides protection from harm (Gen. 16:11). Accordingly, the sons born are important individuals in God's plan.

The significance of the virgin birth seems to be an argument of lesser to greater. A virgin birth exceeds any other miraculous births. Consequently, the virgin-born Son is the most significant individual in redemptive history. He surpasses Isaac, Moses, Samson, or Samuel. In the context of Isaiah 7:14, the birth of this ultimate individual secures the Davidic dynasty and the restoration of a remnant (cf. Shear-Jashub, 7:3). He will be born in exile to end it. Hence, God will use this child in extraordinary ways to fulfill his plan and display his majesty. The child is truly "God with us" (7:14).

Therefore, Isaiah does not write better than he knows. He is aware his words will have bearing upon the future and the Messiah. His intertextual use of terms also shows why his prophecy is theologically significant. His appeal to the virgin birth showcases the Messiah as the most crucial individual for all time. In this way, Isaiah is a prophet-theologian who writes better than we give him credit for.

[Footnotes]

67. Wegner, "How Many Virgin Births?" 467.
68. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 195-96.
69. Wegner, "How Many Virgin Births?" 468-70; Walton, "Isaiah 7:14," 295-98.
70. Hamilton, "Virgin Will Conceive," 228-39. Hamilton summarizes these arguments well.
71. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 178.
72. Isaiah had already used the term "return" (שׁ֖וּב) in a pun on exile. On one hand, a remnant will return (1:26, 27), but the reason they return is because they refused to repent (6:10) and so God must judge them (1:25, 6:13).
73. Contrary to some (e.g., Walton) who argue that Isaiah 7:13-14 falls under a new section historically, there appears to be no real gap in the narrative. Furthermore, even assuming a historical discontinuity between the events, Isaiah enforces a literary continuity by placing the world "also" (גַּם) in the text. This adverb inherently places the information in Isaiah 7:13ff in parallel with the context above. The distribution of "house of David" also attests to this cohesion.
74. Isaiah describes how the present threat is a threat to the house of David (7:2), then addresses Ahaz directly (vv. 3-12), but then later addresses the house of David (v. 13). A change of pronouns accompany the change in titles. God addresses Ahaz in the singular but the Davidic household in the plural. These grammatical shifts argue that the different titles are not meant to be purely stylistic or synonymous. Isaiah addresses two different groups: Ahaz and the rest of the Davidic dynasty.
75. To make verse 16 the content of the sign, one would have to take the particle כִּ֣י ("for") as content ("that"), as opposed to causal or explanatory ("for" or "because"). However, two factors make this unlikely. First, to make verse 16 the content of the sign in verse 14 is unnatural since the verses are quite far apart. Second, technically the particle modifies the verbs in verse 15. The boy will eat curds and honey because the land will be forsaken. Thus, to claim that the sign is one of the destruction of the land is mistaken grammatically.
76. An additional grammatical observation supports this assertion. "Young woman" and "conceive" are in a predicate adjective construction. Conceive (or be pregnant) directly modifies the young woman in her current status. Just as the "man is good" means that the man in his current description as a man is good, so the virgin woman will get pregnant as a virgin. This counters the suggestion that while עַלְמָ֗ה may imply virginity, the young woman in Isaiah's day would marry, become pregnant, and then deliver a child. This too backs the notion that Isaiah had in mind a miraculous conception and birth par excellence. Contra Wegner, "How Many Virgin Births?" 472. Wegner permits Isaiah 7:14 to influence the discussion which is circular reasoning. He suggests, based upon Ugaritic literature (particularly, the Nikkal poem), that glmt cannot include the semantic idea of virgin (471). In dealing with the Nikkal poem, it appears in the context that there is a prayer involved. Hence, the imperfect tld (to give birth) is not past-referring but rather denotes a request. See Vawter, "The Ugaritic Use of GLMT," 321; Goetze, "Nikkal Poem," 353-60. If this is the case, then his reasoning from Ugaritic is less effective.
77. Kidner, "Isaiah," 639; Motyer, Isaiah, 90.
78. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 239.
79. Ibid.; Motyer, Isaiah, 102-5.
80. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 239. Oswalt states "But this person will also be a child, and it is inescapable that the childish aspect of the deliverer is important to Isaiah, for it appears again in 11:6, 8 (as it is, of course, implied in 7:3, 14; 8:1-4, 8, 18)." See also Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 158-64; Motyer, Isaiah, 101-2.
81. Space does not permit an adequate lexicographical analysis of עַלְמָ֗ה, as opposed to בְּתוּלָה. However, the idea of a young woman who is marriageable and thereby presumably a virgin is defensible. See Wegner, "How Many Virgin Births?" 471-72. Wegner critiques Walton's construal of the evidence for a helpful discussion. I disagree with Wegner's methodology of including Isaiah 7:14 in the discussion. If Isaiah 7:14 is the verse in question, bringing it as evidence of a certain lexical definition is circular reasoning. See also Feinberg, "The Virgin Birth in the Old Testament and Isaiah 7:14," 251-58; Niessen, "The Virginity of the עַלְמָ֗ה in Isaiah 7:14," 133-41. Two passages also raise attention to this issue, including Isaiah 54:4 where the term is used supposedly with a barren woman as well as Proverbs 30:19-20 where an adulterous woman is in the context. Reading Isaiah 54:4 as synonymous parallelism is misleading. Lexically if עַלְמָ֗ה refers to youthfulness, we are dealing with antithetical or merismatic parallelism. In the latter case, it demonstrates that Israel has been shameful in the context of her youthfulness as well as her adulthood. Seeing both other prophetic appeals to Israel's youthfulness as a sexual promiscuous woman (cf. Hos. 1-2) as well as the immediate context, which talks how God will be the faithful husband and make her glorious (Isa. 54:5-12). Zion's perversity as the shame of her youthfulness reinforces the notion of virginity rather than counters it. Similarly, if one takes Proverbs 30:19-20 as the adulterous woman perverting the purity of relationship between man and עַלְמָ֗ה, then it implies the chastity/purity of the עַלְמָ֗ה. That too harmonizes with the notion of implied virginity in the term.
82. Wegner, "How Many Virgin Births?" 467; Walton, "Isaiah 7:14," 297; Oswalt Isaiah 1-39, 210-11.
83. Genesis 16:11 uses a weqatal construction, instead of a participle found in Judges 13:5 and Isaiah 7:14. The use of weqatal probably accommodates Hagar's current pregnant state whereas the participle instans refers to a future event (i.e., that both conception and birth are future). See GKC §112.d (332); IBHS §32.2.4 (535); 37.6f (628). The implication in both Judges 13:5 and Isaiah 7:14 is that the women were not pregnant but would become so in their barren state or in their state as an עַלְמָ֗ה.
84. occurs in three hundred sixty verses without . Hence, the "conceive and give birth" formula is not just colloquial but a subset of communicating unique births.

(Chou, Abner. The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles, pp 113-19.)

My advice to young pastors

Give a pastor a commentary and you feed him for a day; teach a pastor linguistics and you feed him for a lifetime.