Another Look at the 'Virgin Birth' Prophecy of Isaiah

The fulfillment of biblical prophecy makes the strongest case for the authenticity of the Bible. It is no wonder that many folks who challenge the Bible discount biblical prophecy. In general, they are individuals who do not accept the possibility of miracles. So, they search for rational explanations of the fulfillment of prophetic writings that speak about the future.

One strategy used to discount the fulfillment of biblical prophecy is to claim that the prophetic writings came after the events they predicted. Or, some ‘nay-sayers’ claim that believers intentionally orchestrated events to give the appearance of prophetic fulfillment. Yet another way to discount prophetic fulfillment is to challenge whether the prophecy was, in fact, a prophecy in the first place. So it is with the prophecy of the virgin birth of the Messiah in Isaiah 7:14.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Doubters claim that the Jews would not have considered this to have been a prophecy involving a future virgin birth. The thinking is based on the use of a Hebrew term in Isaiah 7:14 that means ‘young girl’ (or, virgin). Though the word generally suggests a ‘young virgin girl’ it cannot be restricted to that meaning exclusively. (I wrote about this one year ago in an article entitled: “What Do You Think About the Virgin Birth?”)

Last winter I learned something that has brought this Old Testament text to my mind once again. I learned that the assumption that the Jews did not expect a virgin birth is simply not true.

The approximate time that Isaiah prophesied was between 739-681 B.C. Isaiah recorded his prophesies in the Hebrew language, later translated into Greek, in a writing known as the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, the Roman numeral for 70, and representing the 72 Jewish scholars who translated the work). The LXX was completed in the 2nd Century B.C., over 100 years before the birth of Jesus.

The translators of the LXX used a Greek term meaning ‘virgin’ when translating Isaiah 7:14. There is no mistake; they believed that the future Immanuel (“God with us”) would be born of a virgin. So, they had no difficulty in understanding the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14.

Matthew, by inspiration, used the same Greek word as the LXX for ‘virgin’ when describing the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:23, 25).

The idea that the Hebrew term used by Isaiah did not necessarily mean ‘virgin’ was pressed forward by unbelieving Jews after the 1st Century A.D. In other words, some non-believing Jews were trying to find a way to discredit Christianity. So, they challenged the virgin birth prophecy concerning Immanuel found in Isaiah 7:14.

An early Christian writer of the 3rd Century A.D. named Origen spoke out against this challenge by making a simple observation (which I have abbreviated considerably):

Isaiah prophesied that “the Lord Himself will give you a sign.” A pregnant married woman would not be much of a sign; but a pregnant virgin would be an amazing sign!

So, the Jews at the time of Jesus actually did believe that Immanuel would be born of a virgin. Then, after Christianity began to spread, some who rejected Jesus began reinterpreting Isaiah in order to attack Christianity.

Some today have resurrected the same old stale argument in order to attack the inspiration of God’s word. The surprising thing is that some of them presume to wear the name of Christ!

Stand firm! Do not be deceived!!!

Mark Stinnett

What Do You Think About the Virgin Birth?

There it was again. The online headline read: 

Nun receives death threats for suggesting Mary was not a virgin. 

The article told about the uproar caused when a Roman Catholic nun suggested that “Mary was in love with Joseph and that they were a normal couple—and having sex is a normal thing.” In a later interview she apologized for upsetting folks and added that she only wanted to say, “it wouldn’t shock me if she had a normal couple’s relationship with Joseph, her husband.” 

One author suggested that the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus was a tiresome issue. He asked his readers whether it would it really matter to them if Mary was not a virgin. (Reading between the lines: "Why do we need to bother with messy doctrine; why can't we just get along?")

The threats generated by the nun’s comment and the ambivalence shown by the author seem to represent extremes. So, is it just a tiresome doctrinal question that tends to cause arguments, or is it important to the Christian?

Before you answer, read this:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.  —Matthew 1:18

What can you conclude from the phrase ‘before they came together’? What does the context tell you? 

Then, a few verses later (v. 23), Matthew quoted from Isaiah:

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”  --Isaiah 7:14

Clearly, Matthew intended for his readers to accept that Mary was a virgin. So, why all the fuss?

Some folks question whether Isaiah really meant virgin. (If not, then Matthew should not have used the Greek term for virgin.) Here are a couple of facts to consider:

• In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew term refers to a young girl. It does not necessarily indicate virginity.
• The Jewish rabbis did not view the prophecy from Isaiah to be a reference to the birth of their future Messiah. 

Let's think this through...

Isaiah’s prophecy was directed to an audience several centuries before Christ with an expected fulfillment related to their current situation. The prophecy did not necessarily indicate a virgin birth. However, the prophecy had a second fulfillment, something that the Jews did not expect, in Mary. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit Matthew wrote about this second fulfillment through Mary. And clearly, Matthew intended for his readers to understand that Mary WAS a virgin. So, the argument based on a ‘technical meaning of a Hebrew word’ proves nothing.

As for the expectation of the Jewish rabbis; remember, that the Jews expected the Messiah to rule an earthly kingdom. Yet, Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). So, Jewish interpretation of Old Testament prophecy was not always reliable.

I have observed that those who question whether Mary was a virgin generally discount a virgin birth miracle, discount the inspiration of the Scriptures, and are sloppy with their comparison of the Hebrew text of Isaiah and the text of Matthew. Read Matthew 1:18-25. What do you think it says about Mary?

Perhaps the real question is about one's attitude toward the Bible. After all, the Bible really settles the question about the virgin birth, that is, unless you don’t believe the Bible and divine inspiration or don’t accept miracles.

So, is the question of the virgin birth important? It is only as important as the validity of the Bible as God’s holy word!!