Why Isaiah 7:14 Is Not A Prophecy of Jesus’ Virgin Birth.

Screen Shot 2018-05-27 at 1.19.27 PM.png

Many Christians believe/argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the coming Messiah (Jesus) who will be born of a virgin. The Isaiah passage says, “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” (7:14).

It is clear that like other scriptural passages this takes place within a specific historical context. In this case the prophet Isaiah is addressing king Ahaz of Judah when he and Jerusalem were under attack by the Kingdom of Israel and its ally Aram-Damascus (Syria). Their goal was to get king Ahaz to join them in an alliance that would unite to fight against the powerful Neo-Assyrian Empire. Nonetheless, Assyria would soon come to king Ahaz’s assistance and destroy the Kingdom of Israel and Syria. Before this, however, Isaiah promised Ahaz that God would destroy his enemies, and, as a sign that what he said would come true, the prophet predicted that an almah (the Hebrew word for a woman of childbearing age) would give birth to a child. The child’s name would be Immanuel which translates to “God is with us,” and that the threat from the enemy kings would be ended before the child grew up. This historical setting is important to note.

The challenges to believing that this is a prediction of the virgin birth of Jesus (some seven or so centuries later) are several. First, the word “virgin” is not mentioned in Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah could have selected a more suitable word had he wanted to describe Immanuel’s mother as a virgin. In that case, “betulah” would be a more common way to refer to a woman who has never had sexual relations with a man. Instead, Isaiah used the word “almah” which means “young woman.” It is the female form of “young man,” and it therefore explains why a number of Christian Bible translations (Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version etc.) have since replaced the word “virgin” with “young woman.” And even though most evangelical Bibles still render almah as “virgin,” they footnote it with “young woman” as an alternative (including in the copy I’m holding in my hand as I write this) (1).

Second, the historical context provides a significant challenge to those claiming that this is a prophecy of Jesus’ virgin birth. After all, should someone interpret the passage as referring to Jesus’ birth, then we might wonder as to exactly what assurance Ahaz, who at the time was being besieged by an overwhelming military presence, would have had given a prophecy predicting a future some seven centuries removed?

Further, details in the wider passage are also suggestive that the child Isaiah was referring to could not have been Jesus. For example, as scholar Thom Starke explains, the detail that the child would eat “cream and honey” refers to the fact that the land had been recently ravaged by the Assyrians, and that the people are thus forced to eat uncultivated food (cream and honey) as opposed to bread and wine (2). That Isaiah said the child would be called “Emmanuel” which means “God with us” does not mean the child himself is God, as was believed of Jesus by the earliest Christians. On this point Starke elucidates, “Ancient names frequently included reference to some god or divine activity. Joshua’s name means “Yahweh saves,” and Azariah means “Yahweh helps,” but neither Joshua nor Azariah were therefore understood to be Yahweh in the flesh. The significance of naming the child “God with us” is that the child was a sign to king Ahaz that Yahweh was going to protect the kingdom of Judah from the hostile alliance presently threatening it. The child was born, and not too long thereafter, Assyria had indeed defeated the kingdom of Israel in battle. That is the “single, fixed meaning” of Isaiah’s prophecy” (3).

Moreover, if this is a prophecy of Jesus then who are the “two kings” whose kingdoms identified by the prophet Isaiah would be abandoned during Jesus’ lifetime? Who, during the first century AD, “dreaded” the Kingdom of Israel when there had not been a Northern Kingdom of Israel in existence for 700 years?

Scholar Bart Ehrman explains that when one uses Isaiah 7:14 (and Isaiah 53, more on 53 in a later post) as a predictive prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus he urges him to read the passages carefully and find where there is any reference to a messiah, “These passages are not talking about the messiah,” says Ehrman, “The messiah is never mentioned in them. Anyone who thinks they *are* talking about the messiah, has to import the messiah into the passages, because he simply isn’t there.  I should stress that no one prior to Christianity took these passages to refer to a future messiah” (4)

But if this is the case, then what about the Gospel of Matthew? According to Matthew’s gospel an angel appears to Joseph, Mary’s husband, in a dream and tells him that Mary’s pregnancy fulfills what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘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” (Mat. 1:22-23).

The issue here is that Matthew drew his Isaiah 7:14 reference from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible which had begun several centuries before Christ’s birth. In the Septuagint one discovers that Isaiah predicted that a “parthenos,” a virgin, would conceive a child. Starke explains that “The trouble began when the Greek translators of the Greek Suptuagint (LXX) translated almah using the Greek word Parthenos, which by Matthew’s time did mean virgin. Since Matthew used the Greek Bible, he would have understood the meaning to have been virgin, thus his reapplication of the prophecy to support the tradition of the virgin birth of Jesus” (5). This is understandable given that Matthew’s author was eager to convince his Greek-speaking Jewish audience that Jesus was God’s promised Messiah, hence why he included references to the Hebrew Scriptures, “the Matthean community is not interested in the text for its historical meaning, they are only interested in using the text to elucidate their own present-day experiences and to reinforce their sense of identity” (6).

References.

1. Burke, D. 2012. Did Isaiah Really Predict The Virgin Birth? Available.

2. Starke, T. Human Faces of God. Location: 1012

3. Starke, T. Ibid. Location: 1036

4. Ehrman, B. Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies. Available.

5. Starke, T. Ibid. Location: 1031

6. Starke, T. Ibid. Location: 1072.

Advertisements

7 responses to “Why Isaiah 7:14 Is Not A Prophecy of Jesus’ Virgin Birth.

  1. Absolute garbage..you discredit the sense of any truth of the historic Church and its apostolic foundation..the carnal mind is enmity against God James..good luck on the last day!

  2. Thom Stark is spelled without an “e” on the end. Other than that, thanks for admitting the obvious!

    Even Evangelical Apologist Josh McDowell Admits that the Virgin Birth Prophecy was Not Originally about Jesus: https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/evangelical-apologist-josh-mcdowell-admits-that-the-virgin-birth-prophecy-was-not-originally-about-jesus

    Besides the difficulties you mentioned, there are even more difficulties with citing passages in Isaiah as prophecies of Jesus: https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/search/label/Isaiah

    And this article interprets Isaiah 53 in light of the wider section in Isaiah of which it is a part, some excellent points are raised: https://apikoris.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/isaiah-53.html?view=magazine

    Speaking of seeing so call prophecies in the OT one might add that Isaiah can even be interpreted as uttering prophetic warnings against orthodox Christian beliefs depending on how you read these passages: https://web.archive.org/web/20151002114813/http://home.comcast.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah-NT.html

    Additional OT passages that Christians ignore because they don’t fit easily with NT theology:
    “God is not a man.”
    Atonement without blood.
    Torah is always there for us.
    Deuteronomy 4.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20151002114646/http://home.comcast.net/~fiddlerzvi/j4j_no.html

  3. You spend a lot of time on this blog showing how the bible is incorrect in so many ways. It’s astounding why you’re even a christian if you pretty much agree that the bible is bullshit. I have to agree with John Argent. Why even continue in your stupid faith if you admit that it’s source is bunk. You should just leave the faith already.

    But thank you for continually showing me that leaving christianity was the riight choice. The more I read of this blog, the more I’m convinced i did the right thing

    • I’m honest Luis. I don’t play pretend when seeking the truth. And not at all for me to come across as insensitive, but the fact that you chose to leave Christianity was your choice alone. No-one made it for you. You also haven’t obviously read my blog widely because if you did you’d discover materials in which I argue for the truth of Christianity. Moreover, if you feel you want to chat about the reasons you left Christianity it would be my honour to chat with you.

  4. Pingback: Isaiah 7:14; A Response – The Resident Theologian·

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s