If the word ‘almâ has designated only an ordinary adolescent (not necessarily virgin), then we would be confronted with an obscure verse. For the whole structure of the text has previously highlighted, with important rhetorical devices, the singularity of the oracle that was proclaimed. In fact, the presence of ‘almâ, at the heart of Isaiah 7;14, would seem almost inessential, for the conception of a child calls, in principle, for a young mother. On the other hand, if one held a meaning of the term that was more precise than that of ‘young woman’ and interpreted the word as designating a (celibate) ‘nubile woman (who is not necessarily a virgin),’ the word ‘almâ would be considered somehow awkward in an oracle called to reassure and sustain the “House of David”. For if it could cast a doubt upon the legitimacy of this birth. In ancient Israel and in general, in ancient Levant, a king would only marry a celibate girl (who had never been married before) upon the condition that she was a virgin.

Surely, if we considered the word ‘almâ to mean a (celibate) ‘nubile woman’, the sign would retain all of its pertinence: a highly significant name, a bearer of hope for the Davidic dynasty, the announcement of a birth, and a special upbringing. The fact remains that the text would not allow us to solve the mystery of the identity of this child or its genealogy, contrary to that of Maher-Shalal, the son of Isaiah and the prophetess. Therefore, if one gave to the word ‘almâ the meaning of (celibate) ‘nubile woman’, what the reader or hearer would struggle to discern would be precisely the object of the sign given to the house of David. An unknown young girl is pregnant, she bears a child and give her son a name which is not unusual among the numerous theophoric first-names in Israel and that the whole of biblical literature does not identify anywhere. The parents remain anonymous, the child remains unknown, the object of the oracle eludes us.