I’ve been working on a series of posts that examine the prophecies given in the Bible. My first post in the series can be found here.
One of the best known prophecies of Christ concerns the virgin birth. In Matthew 1:18-25, we learn about Mary’s pregnancy and the birth of Jesus. In verses 22-23, we’re told:
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
The passage in Isaiah 7 that Matthew is referencing is definitely a prophecy. It says that something specific is going to happen, and it seems to include peculiar events that would be impossible under normal circumstances. However, there are still a couple of problems.
First of all, this prophecy is given to King Ahaz of Judah to put him at ease about the looming threat of Syria and Israel, who had joined forces to attack him. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, but he’s given one anyway:
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 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.”
– Isaiah 7:14-15
Now in the Bible story, there’s only one person we know of that is born of a virgin, and that’s Jesus. But this prophecy was given to a king who lived 700 years before Christ and had an immediate need that he was concerned about. So if this were a prophecy about Christ, what possible consolation would it have been for King Ahaz? The other interesting question is why would it say “before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good,” if we’re talking about Jesus? Granted, we don’t know exactly how he was as a child, but this still sounds unusual.
Of course, the reason we know this prophecy is talking about Jesus is because of the word virgin. But in actuality, the Hebrew word here is almah, which means “maiden.” While that can imply virginity, it does not necessitate it. And in any other circumstance, a maiden who is pregnant is obviously not a virgin. Had Isaiah really meant virgin, he could have used the word bethulah, which means just that. That word is used in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 where the subject of virginity is actually discussed. The word almah was used in passages like Genesis 24:43 where the point of the passage had nothing to do with whether or not someone was actually a virgin. Of course, even if Isaiah had meant to say “virgin,” that doesn’t necessarily mean he was implying the conception would be through miraculous means. A virgin can conceive by having sex. So she may have been a virgin at the time the prophecy was given, but that doesn’t mean he was stating she would still be one by the time she conceived.
Furthermore, Isaiah 8 actually seems to show the fulfillment of this prophecy. Verses 1-4 show where Isaiah goes in to a prophetess who conceives, and he names the child Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Then he repeats the same prophecy he gave before, “before the boy knows how to cry ‘my father’ or ‘my mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria” (vs 4).
Every indication is that this prophecy has nothing to do with Christ. It was about a current event in Isaiah’s time, and its fulfillment happened right there in Isaiah chapter 8. This really calls Matthew’s integrity into question.
The fact that Isaiah’s prophecy deals with a local event in his own time is not new information. Apologists and preachers are aware of it, but they try to answer the problem by saying that many prophecies have double fulfillments. In other words, they admit that Isaiah was talking about a local issue in this prophecy, and that it was fulfilled by the birth recounted in Isaiah 8. But they say that the prophecy also had a double meaning that pointed to Christ.
I think this is a very poor explanation. A prophecy really has no point unless it’s predictive in nature, because anyone can claim credit once the event has happened. To borrow an analogy I’ve used before, I could claim credit for predicting the World Trade Center collapse of 9/11 by saying I knocked down a tower of blocks when I was four. While my immediate actions only concerned the tower of blocks, I was also predicting the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Obviously, that’s a ridiculous claim. But this is basically how people have tried to explain Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7. See, here’s the problem: Before Christ came, people who read Isaiah would find no significance in the prophecy of chapter 7, because they’d see that it had already been fulfilled in chapter 8. Since no one saw it as a prophecy of the Messiah, there was no point in having it. No one would have dreamed of making the connection until Matthew told us to.
So while I suppose we could say that this was just the magnificent insight of a person who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, it seems more like the manipulation of someone creating a myth.
We’ll continue our study of prophecies in the next post.
Finding Truth 
In the case of genesis, where they are finding a wife for Isaac, it was assumed that a young girl being sought for a wife, would also be a virgin, since that was an important part of their customs. So when the word meaning “young woman” was used in that context, it was safe to assume they were also looking for a virgin, because a young bride was typically a virgin under their customs. So “virgin” would have been assumed to be implied because of the customs, not because of the word meaning “young woman.”
In the case of Isaiah, he used the word for “young woman” as well, and not the word for “virgin.” The assumption would have been different here than in genesis because women who have had sex, not only typically, but always, can only conceive children. Since that is the case, that virgins never conceive and that the specific word for virgin was not used, the meaning of “virgin” would not be assumed – it would have to be explicitly stated otherwise. Isaiah, for clarity, would have made absolutely clear that a virgin would conceive and bear a son, without ever having known a man; but that clarification was never made.
I don’t think it’s so much the word for “young woman” that conveys “virginity” as much as it is the surrounding context.
LikeLike
“Sheeesh way to go for consistency …in denseness. The verifiable evidence is prophetical in nature which is why that has to be dealt with first. At least try and keep up.” – mike
Several of these have been address, like Isaiah’s “virgin prophecy” here: https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/prophecy-part-5-virgin-birth/
we can discuss that one more on that thread.
LikeLike
In the case of genesis, where they are finding a wife for Isaac, it was assumed that a young girl being sought for a wife, would also be a virgin, since that was an important part of their customs. So when the word meaning “young woman” was used in that context, it was safe to assume they were also looking for a virgin, because a young bride was typically a virgin under their customs. So “virgin” would have been assumed to be implied because of the customs, not because of the word meaning “young woman.”
In the case of Isaiah, he used the word for “young woman” as well, and not the word for “virgin.” The assumption would have been different here than in genesis because women who have had sex, not only typically, but always, can only conceive children. Since that is the case, that virgins never conceive and that the specific word for virgin was not used, the meaning of “virgin” would not be assumed – it would have to be explicitly stated otherwise. Isaiah, for clarity, would have made absolutely clear that a virgin would conceive and bear a son, without ever having known a man; but that clarification was never made.
I don’t think it’s so much the word for “young woman” that conveys “virginity” as much as it is the surrounding context.
LikeLike
You know, the more I think about this the more it seems so clear, and I think is really worth the consideration from believers.
Virgins, and I mean real, never had sex, virgins do not have children. This is so rare that even christians believed it only happened once.
So rare that some christians and well as all nonbelievers dont believe it happened ever. many people are nonbelievers because the thought of a real deal virgin giving birth is so ridiculous and contrary to the natural order of human reproduction.
yet, despite this rarity, Isaiah didnt specifically draw attention to the fact that he meant a real deal virgin. he used the word for “young woman” and NOT the hebrew word for Virgin.
Sure, some will say that isaiah obviously meant “virgin” but that ignores the child being born in chapter 8 as well as the context of child birth… Virgins dont give birth to children, so if this what isaiah meant, then he would have made certain, so that there was no mistaking it, so there was no doubt as to what he meant.
“Young women” can bear children after they’ve had sex. “Virgins” do not. “Young women” were expected to be virgins prior to marriage, but no where in isaiah 7 does it say the “young woman” would be unwed – but even if she were not, a “young woman” that has sex out of wedlock, is still young and is still a woman – but not a virgin – all of which could be why isaish said “young woman” and not “virgin.”
plus, a baby was born in the next chapter that fit the description and would have actually served as a sign to the king that the “prophecy” was given as a sign to. He was essentially giving a show of foreknowledge of a baby being born and the demise of enemies prior to a child being born – although still without a very specific timeline or date.
LikeLike
Well, it won’t surprise you to know that I agree completely. 🙂
LikeLike
well, i guess I should make one correction and that being that several religions also claim virgin births – some of which (if not all) predate christianity.
LikeLike
I read through a different version of the bible that I on’t use that much called The Message translation it reads as follows:
13-17 So Isaiah told him, “Then listen to this, government of David! It’s bad enough that you make people tired with your pious, timid hypocrisies, but now you’re making God tired. So the Master is going to give you a sign anyway. Watch for this: A girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She’ll bear a son and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us). By the time the child is twelve years old, able to make moral decisions, the threat of war will be over. Relax, those two kings that have you so worried will be out of the picture. But also be warned: God will bring on you and your people and your government a judgment worse than anything since the time the kingdom split, when Ephraim left Judah. The king of Assyria is coming!”
I have to admit that it does read as he is predicting something in the immediate future to put the audience at ease, not predicting the coming of a Messiah.
LikeLike
Yeah, this one was pretty striking to me when I first started studying through these issues.
Thanks for weighing in, Matt.
LikeLike
I personally don’t think The Message is the most straightforward translation, when compared to older translations it can come off as confusing to me.
eg: comparing Psalm 23:1
King James Version
– The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
New International Version
– The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
The Message
– GOD, my shepherd! I don’t need a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(Bible)
LikeLike
or here’s another example,
The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13)
King James Version
9. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11. Give us this day our daily bread.
12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
compared to
The Message
9-13 With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best— as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You’re ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.
__________________
Another note to make is that “as above, so below” is actually a maxim in Hermeticism, which is not a Biblical tradition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism
Why would have Eugene H. Peterson translated his (The Message) version to this maxim?
It does make me question other possible influences behind this translation
LikeLike
And what meant by saying that Hermeticism is not a “Biblical tradition” is that its a occult tradition,
Maxims like this seem to imply a mixing of Biblical Truth in translation, with external pseudepigraphical influences.
LikeLike
And I’m not saying that some nefarious reasoning is necessarily behind this.
I’m just saying that not all translations are the same. Not all translations are translated off the same sources of manuscripts and translation bases. The translation s process can take years and involve many different people. It really is a science as well as a calling.
Here are two examples:
1. The New American Standard Bible, which took nearly 10 years to complete involved a variety of people from different denominational backgrounds. The translators of the updated NASB meticulously followed all the same tried-and-true safeguards as set forth in the original NASB regarding the updated NASB, more than 20 translators spent nearly three years scrutinizing the NASB in order to modernize and maintain it in accordance with the most recent research on the oldest and best manuscripts.”
At no point did the translators attempt to interpret Scripture through translation. Instead, the NASB translation team adhered to the principles of literal translation. This is the most exacting and demanding method of translation, requiring a word-for-word translation that is both accurate and readable. This method follows the word and sentence patterns of the original authors in order to enable the reader to study Scripture in its most literal format and to experience the individual personalities of those who penned the original manuscripts. For example, one can directly compare and contrast the simple eloquent style of John with the deep complexity of Paul.
http://www.lockman.org/nasb/
2. The King James translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from theTextus Receptus(Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from theMasoreticHebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from theLatin Vulgate. In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.
http://www.gotquestions.org/King-James-Version-KJV.html#ixzz3CnKMinNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
Certain types of translations work off different manuscripts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
For example the Textus Receptus:
Constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
In contrast, the Alexandrian text:
Most modern New Testaments are based on the Nestle-Aland 27, in formulating a Greek text. This invariably results in a text that is strongly Alexandrian in character
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type
There are also movements that hold the position that Textus Receptus is the accurate and Holy Spirit Inspired succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament.
Many of these same movements also consider The Alexandrian text-type to be false, and some even believe it is a demonic deception that has been mixed with newer translations to confuse and “muddy the waters”
There are some Christians who consider the Nestle-Aland translations and subsequent editions of these to be inherently corrupt, since they are based off of Nestle-Aland. There are even circulating articles that critique the integrity and personal lives of Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland, to build a case that their translations are deceptive and/or erroneous.
I find it all very interesting 🙂
LikeLike
Now which translation(s) are Inspired by God, and which ones are based off the notions of man, that is another question that surrounds the translation process.
LikeLike
This might be useful for study
http://www.biblestudytools.com/compare-translations/
Hopefully God will point us in the right direction, if He is not already.
LikeLike
Found this via wiki:
The verses surrounding Isaiah 7:14 tell how Ahaz, the king of Judah, is told of a sign to be given in demonstration that the prophet’s promise of God’s protection is a true one. The sign is that an almah will give birth to a son who will still be very young when Judah’s enemies will be destroyed.[7] Most Christians identify the almah of this prophecy with the Virgin Mary.[8] In Isaiah 7, the almah is already pregnant, and modern Jewish translators have therefore rendered almah here as “young woman”.[9] The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was completed in the late 2nd century BCE, translated almah into Greek as παρθένος (parthenos). Many scholars render parthenos into English as virgin. However, the Septuagint also describes Dinah as a parthenos even after she has been raped and hence is no longer a virgin.[10]
I’ll say it is up in the air wether the word means young woman/maiden or if it mean virgin. However what seems pretty clear is the king was wanting an imediate sign to calm his fears not something that will occur hundreds of years later.
LikeLike
MAtt, the more i’ve look at this and thought about it, it seems so very clear.
The hebrews had a word that meant only “virgin” and a word that meant “young woman” that sometimes implied virginity depending on the context.
1) “young woman” was used here – not “virgin.”
2) the natural context of a woman having children rules out “virgin” since no virgins give birth to children. If the context that a young woman was to wed, we could probably assume she was also a virgin at that time… but with child birth? Young women can have children. Young women can be virgins. Virgins cant have children, though, so something more would be presented to make certain that “virgin” was understood if it is what was intended.
3) the very next chapter a son is born to a young woman and while he is still young, ahaz’s enemies are taken care of.
If isaiah meant “virgin” or intended “virgin” to be understood, dont you think he’d put more emphasis on this? Dont you think that he’d not only use the word for “virgin” instead of “young woman” but also likely repeat it, so that everyone clearly understood that he was talking about a miraculous event and not just some prediction of childbirth?
something like, “a real virgin will have a son, a young woman who has never known a man, will be bear a child from god…”
something like that, compared to, “a young woman will conceive and bear a son…”
LikeLike
You would think that the writer would flesh out “will conceive” a little more if it was to be taken any differently than how conception is normally done, wouldn’t you.
LikeLike
If nothing else, Isaiah 7 and 8 certainly don’t offer the kind of prediction of a virgin birth that we all would have assumed, considering its level of importance in Christianity. As often as we heard it spoken of from the pulpit, or in Bible classes, or around Christmas, you’d think the prediction would be blindingly obvious.
LikeLike