AP

THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST

In the spirit of the saying ‘A text explained without its context is a pretext for a proof text’, I offer some thoughts on Isaiah 7:14. I follow the chronology of the Hebrew kings in essence settled by Edwin Thiele in the 3^rd edition of his The Mysterious numbers of the Hebrew Kings (1983).

Introduction

Reference to the virgin birth is found in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26ff, but nowhere else in the New Testament. All scholars date Matthew and Luke in the first century; conservative scholars place them before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, with Luke commonly about AD 61. There were never forms of Matthew and Luke without the infancy narratives – they are found in all the complete Greek manuscripts and the early translations. Further, there are no variations in the Greek manuscripts which would call in question the virgin birth.

Luke was a medical doctor, and it seems very fitting that he should record details concerning the miraculous conception of Jesus, details which he no doubt obtained from Mary herself (cf. Luke 1:1-4). Matthew was a Jew who wrote for Jews. He regards Isaiah 7: 14 as a prophecy that the Messiah should be born of a virgin and quotes the passage in support of the record he gives. These witnesses are sufficient to establish the doctrine. Careful examination of Isaiah’s passage shows Matthew does not misunderstand it. 

Context

As well as in the introductory chapter 1, Isaiah has repeatedly spoken of the devastating judgement that is to come upon Judah and Jerusalem before an eventual restoration (e.g., Isa 1:7-9; 3:1-26; 4:2-4; 5:5-7). Isaiah’s commission as prophet in 740 BC is explicit with this emphasis (Isa 6:8-13). In chapter 7 the year is 735/734. and King Ahaz of Judah is worried because the two nations to his north – Israel (capital Samaria) and Syria (capital Damascus) – are in league to force Judah into a defensive alliance against Assyria. An earlier effort had failed because Assyria came to Judah’s aid for a large price (2 Kings 16; 2 Chron 28). Now a full-scale siege of Jerusalem by the northerners is pending with the aim of destroying the dynasty of David and ‘breaking up’ Judah between themselves (Isa 7:6) through a puppet king.  Even some of the people of Judah seemed to like the prospect as providing greater security (Isa 8:5).

The prophet Isaiah was told by the Lord to go with his son Shear-Jashub (meaning: a remnant will return) to meet King Ahaz.  Ahaz is looking at his resources, particularly Jerusalem’s water supply which was not secure until a generation later. Ahaz is faced with a choice: trust God’s promise to the House of David that Jerusalem will not be taken or look for help elsewhere, in which case it will bring the downfall of the House of David (Is 7:9) as presently constituted. To trust God’s promise is a challenge to faith given the desperate situation so God is ready to give a confirmatory sign. Ahaz sounds pious but is actually hypocritical in refusing it. He already has in view to seek help from Assyria, so the dynasty’s downfall is inevitable).

Isaiah 7

Coming now to the sign God imposes we certainly expect with the introductory Behold! Something extraordinary. In Hebrew it reads in literal translation: ‘Behold! the virgin is with child and will bring forth a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.’ There is nothing very remarkable in a young Jewish woman conceiving a son and piously giving him a godly name, but a virgin giving birth is startling to say the least.

1. The debate over the translation ‘virgin’ is often misconceived. There are several words in Hebrew to describe a young woman – na’arah, betulah and ‘almah, and they can overlap in meaning. Take the case of Rebekah. In Genesis 24:16 we read: ‘The girl (na’arah) was very beautiful, of marriageable age (betulah), who had never slept with a man’, while in Genesis 24:43 Rebekah is termed simply an ‘almah, which also means a young woman of marriageable age.  In the strict code of ancient Israel a young woman of marriageable age, in essence a teenager, would be expected to be chaste (Ex 22:16; Deut 22:13ff). Depending on context the translation ‘virgin’ is entirely appropriate for either term. However, betulah can also be used for a married woman (as in Joel 1:8), or (as in Amos 5:2) for God’s fallen virgin daughter  (betulat Yisrael), a daughter who will be restored again as Jeremiah records, her wicked past forgiven (Jer 18:13; 31:2,21-22). On the other hand, ‘almah which appears nine times in the Old Testament – Rebekah (Gen 24:43), Moses’ sister (Ex 2:8) or Proverbs 30:19 are examples – is NEVER applied to a married woman or an unchaste young woman, leaving us in no doubt of the intention to refer to a true virgin, given the context. The Jewish translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek circa 200BC (the Septuagint) were quite correct in rendering ‘almah by the Greek word parthenos (virgin). That does not mean those translators actually thought of a virgin birth since such was foreign to their experience and cultural history. In fact, they seem to have thought that one presently an ‘almah will conceive a child in the future in the usual way, and that Ahaz and not the virgin is to name the child Immanuel.

• Of course, Biblical prophecy is often somewhat enigmatic until its fulfilment more fully illuminates it. We have no surviving evidence that the Jewish teachers before Christ held Isaiah 7:14 to be Messianic, but we are not misplaced in our confidence that not only is the virgin birth attested by the New Testament, but that God promised that the Saviour would be so born more than 700 years before the event. The words of Jesus come to mind, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!’ (Luke 24: 25). As Blaise Pascal put it: ‘In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.’

• The objection that a sign to someone to be born some 700 years later cannot be a sign to Ahaz, falls to the ground if one remembers that the sign is given to the House of David and not just to Ahaz. Remember the warning of Isaiah 7:9 – ‘If you (plural) do not stand firm you will not stand at all.’  Earlier Isaiah had the nation would go into exile before restoration of a holy seed (6:11-13).  Now God says through Isaiah that the restoration will ultimately mean a new Davidic House with a faithful Ruler who will always stand firm. Isaiah 9 spells out the virgin-born child’s character as the true deliverer.

• Isaiah refers to a particular person – THE virgin. He also states that the virgin IS with child (present tense not future). In other words, he does not say that a woman presently a virgin will in the future have a child, but he says that one presently a virgin has already conceived. He evidently sees a few scenes in prophetic vision (note Isa 1:1), one being this particular virgin who belongs to the distant future (as will be explained shortly) but he treats the vision as if she is present and about to give birth and therefore says:

1. that the child’s infancy will see a time of trouble represented by the diet of a ruined country without agriculture, only sour milk from a few animals and wild honey (7:15) as further explained in 7:21-25;
2. at the same time the threat of the northern alliance will disappear (7:16).  Essentially this same message is repeated soon after when Isaiah and his wife have a second child, a brother for Shear-Jashub (Isaiah 8:3-4). Before this second child can say ‘Daddy’ or ‘Mummy’, the disaster on Syria and Israel will occur at the hands of the Assyrians.

Initial fulfilment: Around the time of his meeting with Isaiah, Ahaz pleaded with the king of Assyria for help against the northern alliance and paid a hefty tribute. King Tiglath-Pileser complied, captured Damascus and killed Rezin (2 Kings 16:5-9) in 732. The Assyrians also took towns in northern Israel (2 Kings 15:29-30 cf. Isa 9:1) so that only the central area of Samaria was left. Pekah was assassinated by Hoshea in 732 and Israel became a vassal of Assyria. When Hoshea, after several years, refused to pay the tribute, the Assyrians invaded and Samaria fell in 722 after a siege of three years (2 Kings 17:1-6).  [Many from Israel were deported and foreigners introduced at various times so Israel fully lost its proper identity within the 65 years of verse 8b (cf. Ezra 4:2]. As the imminent changes in Syria and Israel occur, Ahaz and the House of David have further assurance that the rest of the prophecy will be fulfilled also.

Later fulfilment. If Ahaz thought his plan had succeeded it was only a matter of time before the end of his dynasty came. The negative threat to his House involved in the sign was sure. Ahaz died in 715 and his son Hezekiah (who had been regent since 729, at least in name), succeeded him. He reversed many of his father’s policies, built the famous tunnel from the Gihon Spring to the pool of Shiloah or Siloam (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chron 32:2-4,30), trusted the Lord and was saved from Sennacherib’s siege in 701 by the Lord’s remarkable intervention (2 Kings 19:35-37). But the inevitable exile of Judah (Isa 5:3-8) and the end of the Davidic dynasty as presently constituted would soon enough come.

In understanding verse 16 we must notice the significance in verse 17 which links Ahaz’s attitude of unbelief with the division that split the original Israel when the ten northern tribes rebelled under Jeroboam in 930. The breakup of Judah began with its overlord Assyria (cf. 7:21ff) although completed by Babylon, which overthrew the Assyrians in 609. Given that ‘land’ in 7:16b is singular, its reference in most translations to the lands of the kings of Syria and Israel is debateable. Further, the Hebrew word quts often translated ‘fear’ or ‘dread’ should be rendered something like ‘break up’ as it is in Isaiah 7:6. Therefore, the better translation is: For before the boy will know how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you [Ahaz] are breaking apart [by your unbelief] will be forsaken of her two kings. [Here I follow Murray R. Adamthwaite, ‘Isaiah 7:16: Key to the Immanuel Prophecy’ in Reformed Theological Review, Vol. 59 (August 2000) 65-83, also adopted by Allan Harman in his Commentary on Isaiah (Christian Focus, 2005)].

Fulfilment in Jesus Christ: The positive note in the sign is that rule through a descendant of David will never end (Isa 11:1). Of this Ruler we need look no further than Isaiah 9 which speaks of deliverance after darkness and the birth of a child with names that tell us much of his character: ‘Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’ who will rule on the throne of David and his kingdom for ever, a verse which in Hebrew has no relevant variants. The Greek Septuagint is not noted for strict translation on the prophetic books and does not reference the two central names. This Child is indeed Immanuel (God [is] with us). He will bring about the promised deliverance from sin, a child who would also be Mighty God (Isaiah 9: 6) yet will be born at Bethlehem from David’s line as Micah, Isaiah’s contemporary records. Micah states that his goings forth would be from everlasting (Micah 5:2) and yet he is from the stump of David’s line (Isa 11:1).  Immanuel’s purposes with his people will be fulfilled because the land is his, and God is with them (Isaiah 8:8,10). ‘When the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship’ (Gal 4:4).

He is the one born of the virgin Mary – Son of God and Son of Man. The words of Jesus come to mind, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!’ (Luke 24: 25). By God’s grace may we not be slow of heart to believe.

– Rowland S. Ward