The virgin birth prophecy: out of context

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The virgin birth narrative is extremely problematic. Even if we assume that Jesus existed and performed miracles, there is still zero evidence to corroborate Matthew's claim. On top of this, the claim itself appears to be a lie.

Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14, which says,

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

However, Matthew omitted over half of the actual prophecy. Verses 15 and 16 say,

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.


Aside from the obvious problem - Jesus is never referred to as Immanuel except here by Matthew - we are also left dealing with the fact that the latter half of the prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus. In fact, it would be nonsensical for it to involve Jesus because Isaiah was addressing a king several centuries before Christ was born and he told this king that his enemies would be defeated. That was the entire point of the prophecy. What good is it if a virgin gives birth? Who cares? Aside from being a medical mystery, this would have no significance to anyone for any reason. The significance of the prophecy is that Judah will survive her enemies. The point was that if the king saw Isaiah was correct about one future event, he was justified in assuming that Isaiah would be correct about another future event.

(A quick parenthetical reference is needed here. It is well known that the word here for "virgin" - "almah" in the Hebrew - does not necessarily refer to a virgin but just a young woman who hasn't yet had a child. Leveraging this fact, many scholars say that the prophecy is fulfilled in the next chapter - Isaiah 8:3 - but I'm not entirely convinced of that because the child is given a different name. If anyone can show me the scholarly work linking the two verses, I'd appreciate it.)

I've only ever gotten one possible explanation from Christians on this matter: you can simply yank a quote completely out of context. That is how prophetic utterances work. Thus, this was a double prophecy: a micro-prophecy for the king, which involved verses 14-16, and then a macro-prophecy about Jesus which involved only verse 14.

I reject the above outright as sophomoric and ridiculous because you cannot divorce a prophecy from its purpose. If a prophecy does not warn or guide, what is the point of it? To show that the prophet speaks for God? Perhaps, but that only works if there is good reason to actually believe that the prophecy was fulfilled. Even then, the prophecy is still pointless unless the prophet then goes to actually speak for God. If you have an unverifiable prophecy that is neither a guideline nor a warning, and nothing further is expounded upon it, then it is totally pointless. Nothing more than a parlor trick - even if the magic were to be real, a parlor trick would have no real significance. Jesus may as well have materialized ex nihilo as a fully grown man. There is no reason he had to be born of a virgin. Even if this all happened exactly as Christians believe it, what was the actual point of the prophecy? Recall above where I said, "The point was that if the king saw Isaiah was correct about one future event, he was justified in assuming that Isaiah would be correct about another future event." So we grant Christians the virgin birth prophecy and then what? What warning or promise is this? Establishing foreknowledge of this future event without then telling us what other future events to look for is astonishingly pointless. Matthew is obviously just trying to validate Jesus as the Christ by fabricating a link to the Old Testament - which was, of course, the only scripture at the time.

But before I go calling Matthew a liar, there are a couple possibilities to consider:

a) Matthew had no access to the latter verses
b) Matthew had access to the latter verses but never bothered to read them
c) Matthew was aware of the latter verses and saw no problem in what he was doing
d) Matthew was aware of the latter verses and lied, knowing many won't have the same access to his source material

I find d) to be most likely.
 

Saucy

King of CF
Supporter
Jul 5, 2005
46,663
19,814
Michigan
✟831,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You just offered plausible explanations and finished it off with a personal biased twist. You choose for that to be the right option for you, then that's fine. There isn't a whole lot of background that we know about Matthew. And the gospel itself is anonymous according to Wikipedia. It doesn't actually list an author, but was later attributed to him, being named "According to Matthew."

So, you really can't assume that the author, whoever they were, had access to the Old Testament documents. They were not freely distributed like the bible is today. They were documents written into scrolls kept that the temple and read out on High Holy days. Most people made it to the temple once or twice a year in Jerusalem.

I just wanted to point out that out. We can't really assume how devout the author was pre-Jesus to know how often they made it to the temple or how much they paid attention.
 
Upvote 0

ExodusMe

Rough around the edges
Jan 30, 2017
533
162
Washington State
✟34,734.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thus, this was a double prophecy: a micro-prophecy for the king, which involved verses 14-16, and then a macro-prophecy about Jesus which involved only verse 14.
This is the interpretation I adopt.
I reject the above outright as sophomoric and ridiculous because you cannot divorce a prophecy from its purpose. If a prophecy does not warn or guide, what is the point of it? To show that the prophet speaks for God? Perhaps, but that only works if there is good reason to actually believe that the prophecy was fulfilled. Even then, the prophecy is still pointless unless the prophet then goes to actually speak for God. If you have an unverifiable prophecy that is neither a guideline nor a warning, and nothing further is expounded upon it, then it is totally pointless. Nothing more than a parlor trick - even if the magic were to be real, a parlor trick would have no real significance. Jesus may as well have materialized ex nihilo as a fully grown man. There is no reason he had to be born of a virgin. Even if this all happened exactly as Christians believe it, what was the actual point of the prophecy? Recall above where I said, "The point was that if the king saw Isaiah was correct about one future event, he was justified in assuming that Isaiah would be correct about another future event." So we grant Christians the virgin birth prophecy and then what? What warning or promise is this? Establishing foreknowledge of this future event without then telling us what other future events to look for is astonishingly pointless. Matthew is obviously just trying to validate Jesus as the Christ by fabricating a link to the Old Testament - which was, of course, the only scripture at the time.
I would agree that it seems ad-hoc. I remember reading the bible for the first time as a convert and this is one of the ones I researched. Here is a few thoughts I have on this passage.

1) A prophet is a person to speaks on behalf of God. One of the claims Jesus made was that the OT spoke of him and lead to him. In this case, there were many prophecies (not just the one you cite) that the prophets were speaking, but didn't know what they were fully saying, so to say that the prophecy is limited to the expectations of the prophet or the immediate purpose of the prophecy at hand wouldn't be a good objection. Isaiah spoke of the suffering servant. What significance did those passages provide as it wasn't inherently clear that the suffering servant was the branch/king, etc...?
2) God can fulfill his prophecies in any manner he pleases. It is hard to see why God would be limited to fulfill a prophecy that is based on the best inference a human can make to the explanation. To put it more succinctly, the passage does not explicitly state when/where/how many births we are talking about. If the OT were truly for/about Jesus, as he claimed, then wouldn't the best explanation be that all of the OT should point to him and find their ultimate fulfillment in Him?
3) The doctrine of original sin is not accepted by all Christian's, but it gives a good reason as to why Jesus would need to be born from a virgin. If he was 'conceived' by the Holy Spirit, then this would circumvent the original sin of Adam and give Jesus a sinless human nature.
 
Upvote 0

Deadworm

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2016
1,061
714
76
Colville, WA 99114
✟68,313.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Nihilist Virus: "The virgin birth narrative is extremely problematic."

My comments will be restricted to the actual virgin birth claim.

Nihilist Virus: "...there is still zero evidence to corroborate Matthew's claim. On top of this, the claim itself appears to be a lie."

5 counter-arguments can be adduced to challenge your claim:
(1) In one crucial respect, Jewish skeptics in Jesus' day agreed with the Christian claim that Joseph was not the birth father of Jesus. Skeptics in Jesus' home town disparage Him as "the son of Mary (Mark 6:3)." In a patriarchal society, their decision to characterize Jesus as the son of His mother likely implies a charge of illegitimacy. So we must consider the credibility problem: Was Mary the pious conservative Jewish young woman that tradition makes her out to be or did she engage in premarital sex resulting in an extramarital pregnancy? The latter possibility strikes me as more credible.

(2) Julius Africanus wrote from Emmaus, near Jerusalem around 225 AD. Julius had access to ancient Jewish Christian traditions from this region and has this to say about the role of Jesus' family in preserving Jesus' genealogy and their relevance to His birth:

"From the Jewish villages of Nazareth and Kokhaba they travelled around the rest of the land and interpreted the genealogy they had [from the family traditions] and from the Book of Days [i.e. Chronicles] as far as they could trace it (Julius Africanus, as quoted by Eusebius HE 1.7.14)."

This tradition confimrs the natural implication about Jesus' virgin birth, namely that the Christmas story was first told by Jesus' family, who no doubt derived it from Mary, Jesus' mother. Of course, one might still ask which of the extant versions of the Christmas story did Jesus' family embrace. That question is irrelevant to the present thread.

(3) I now turn to your claims about the Prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. You overlook the fact that Matthew uses the Septuagint, a Greek OT translation used by Greek-speaking Jews in Palestine and by Jews outside of Palestine throughout the Mediterranean world. In the Septuagint, the Hebrew "almah" of Isaiah 7:14 is translated "parthenos," which means "virgin." You ignore the possibility that God wanted to fulfill the messianic prophecy in the form that most of Matthew's readers would have read!

(4) Your claims about contextual difficulties imposes modern interpretive assumptions on a first-century mindset. Matthew employs the same pesher interpretive method that is employed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. (On this, see Harvard professor Krister Stendahl's book, "The School of Saint Matthew.") The pesher method allows a valid secondary contemporary prophetic application of OT texts.

(5) Your point about Isaiah's "Emmanuel" (= "God with us") phrase misses the point.
Thomas acclaims the risen Jesus, "My Lord and my God (John 20:28)!" No king in Isaiah's day rated the status of "God with us." Furthermore, you ignore the next acclamation of messianic divinity in Isaiah 9:5: "A Son is given to us; authority rests upon His shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Of course, no contemporary of Isaiah's was worthy of such lofty titles.
 
Upvote 0

CodyFaith

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 9, 2016
4,856
5,104
31
Canada
✟158,564.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
You're most likely right in your view, I don't know I never actually read into that prophecy.

But while you're probably right, you're also wrong - and here's why.

Matthew 27:35 says that when they cast lots for Jesus clothes fulfilled the words of the prophet. But when you go to Psalms 22:18 you'll notice that this is a Psalm and not (seemingly) a prophecy. Why did it say this then?

Because Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, all of the OT, He said so Himself. When you read something in the Law or Prophets, it has deeper meanings than what's on the surface. It was all leading up to something, Someone, someone who would be the complete fulfillment and representation and all sorts of other things of Israel, of prophecy, etc.

I mean it has to be, or why else would it be written that he fulfilled prophecy in a Psalm? The disciples of Christ back then and even the Jews who didn't believe understood there were deeper meanings in their holy scriptures.


There's always going to be a reasonable explanation for things that go against scripture. Always. I know because I used to do the same thing. I'd find "a good one" and then google it and find an answer for it that would make a fool out of me.
Christ said you have to come to Him as a little child in order to be saved.

Blessed are the meek... and it's never too late until you die to make the choice to be humble.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
The virgin birth narrative is extremely problematic. Even if we assume that Jesus existed and performed miracles, there is still zero evidence to corroborate Matthew's claim. On top of this, the claim itself appears to be a lie.

You are correct to see that there is at least an unclear relationship between Isaiah 7-9 and Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 to refer to the virgin birth of Christ. But let me offer some explanation of what's going on in Isaiah 7-9 and why Matthew is making this connection.

It's helpful to remember at the outset that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience who likely knew the Old Testament Scriptures fairly well. If he grossly mishandled the OT Scriptures it would have been obvious to his original readers. But there doesn't appear to be any problems arising from Matthew's use of the OT from the first century. But getting to Isaiah...

As you may know, Isaiah 7-9 is dealing with Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimitic War. If you don't know about that situation, Syria (Rezin in Isaiah 7:1) and Israel (Pekah in Isaiah 7:1) wanted to form a coalition against Assyria, the super-power of the day. They wanted Ahaz, king of Judah, to join their coalition. When Ahaz refused they sought to compel him to join by going to war with him and besieging Jerusalem (Isaiah 7:1-2).

It is within this context that Isaiah goes to Ahaz. His instructions from the Lord to Ahaz are that Ahaz is to do nothing. God himself will take care of Syria and Israel. They will fizzle out and their coalition will come to nothing (Isaiah 7:7-9). The Lord offers to show Ahaz a sign through Isaiah - an unusual and generous offer. Ahaz can ask whatever he wants and God will provide a sign to demonstrate the truth of the claim (Isaiah 7:10-11). But Ahaz has no interest in a sign (Isaiah 7:12) in a display of false piety. The problem is that Ahaz has already made up his mind to send to Assyria for help (2 Kings 16:8). Isaiah warns that the consequences of aligning with Assyria will be devastating (Isaiah 7:17-25), but Ahaz refuses to head this warning.

Ahaz, king of God's people, has made a terrible mess for God's people because of his unfaithfulness. But even though Ahaz does not want a sign, God will provide one (Isaiah 7:14). A child will be born who will stand with God's people. This child will be the sign that "God is with us" (Immanuel) even though Ahaz has basically sold his people to Assyria. Furthermore, Immanuel will inherit the mess that Ahaz has made for his people (Isaiah 8:8).

If Isaiah 9 can be seen as continuing prophesy concerning this child mentioned in 7 and 8 then this child will be a king, the government will be upon his shoulders, and he will bring peace and salvation to his people.

From this, it's not terribly difficult to see why Matthew took Jesus to be the fulfillment of this promise. Jesus is the sign that "God is with us" and he inherits the mess of former kings (Ahaz included). His kingdom will never end (Isaiah 9:7) and he will save his people. And to put a cherry on top he was even born of an almah.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Eryk

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 29, 2005
5,113
2,377
58
Maryland
✟109,945.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Jesus is never referred to as Immanuel except here by Matthew
(2 Samuel 2:25) And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the LORD.

This verse refers to Solomon, who is called Solomon everywhere else in the Bible. So a person can be referred to by another name, to declare something about them. Jedidah means "beloved of the Lord."

Isaiah was addressing a king
He is, initially, but he switches from the singular "you" to plural beginning in verse 13. The prophecy of the virgin is given to a larger audience: "Hear ye now, O house of David". Christian interpreters believe this is the same child in Isaiah 9, who will sit on the throne of David and rule forever. So that's how we put the verse in context.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You just offered plausible explanations and finished it off with a personal biased twist. You choose for that to be the right option for you, then that's fine. There isn't a whole lot of background that we know about Matthew. And the gospel itself is anonymous according to Wikipedia. It doesn't actually list an author, but was later attributed to him, being named "According to Matthew."

So, you really can't assume that the author, whoever they were, had access to the Old Testament documents. They were not freely distributed like the bible is today. They were documents written into scrolls kept that the temple and read out on High Holy days. Most people made it to the temple once or twice a year in Jerusalem.

I just wanted to point out that out. We can't really assume how devout the author was pre-Jesus to know how often they made it to the temple or how much they paid attention.

Let's assume you're right about everything. Exactly how helpful is that to your case? Then Matthew is not a liar, but he was mistaken. The Bible contains a massive error here, and centuries of tradition have been built upon this folly.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Such interpretations of OT writings is perfectly in alignment with Second Temple Judaism's practice, as can be seen from midrash and the talmud's methodology. So really there is no problem whatsoever.
This is an invented 'error' from modern sceptics who divorce the texts from their context and period in this case, while claiming to do the exact opposite. We see similar claims made in secular histories, where Herodotus is judged in error because he repeats local legends or Homer as valid, while he is claimed as completely accurate when we moderns decide we believe him.
This is an inconsistent and frankly silly way of going about things and amounts to little more than 'having your cake and eating it too'. Either you must read the Gospels in light of 1st century practice, in which case this is a legitimate prophetical interpretation; or you must read them in light of a continuous biblical narrative, in which case this is a legitimate prophetical interpretation; or you must consider them the work of a subsect of Judaism that interpreted it thus in opposition to the rest of Second Temple Judaism, which also does not invalidate the Christian position thereon - being that subsect. So your only way to oppose it would be if you say "prophecy doesn't exist", but you cannot invalidate it on internal grounds.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Nihilist Virus: "The virgin birth narrative is extremely problematic."

My comments will be restricted to the actual virgin birth claim.

Nihilist Virus: "...there is still zero evidence to corroborate Matthew's claim. On top of this, the claim itself appears to be a lie."

5 counter-arguments can be adduced to challenge your claim:
(1) In one crucial respect, Jewish skeptics in Jesus' day agreed with the Christian claim that Joseph was not the birth father of Jesus. Skeptics in Jesus' home town disparage Him as "the son of Mary (Mark 6:3)." In a patriarchal society, their decision to characterize Jesus as the son of His mother likely implies a charge of illegitimacy. So we must consider the credibility problem: Was Mary the pious conservative Jewish young woman that tradition makes her out to be or did she engage in premarital sex resulting in an extramarital pregnancy? The latter possibility strikes me as more credible.

This is not a counter-argument to anything other than your credibility. Jesus is referred to as "the carpenter's son" in more than one of the gospels.

(2) Julius Africanus wrote from Emmaus, near Jerusalem around 225 AD. Julius had access to ancient Jewish Christian traditions from this region and has this to say about the role of Jesus' family in preserving Jesus' genealogy and their relevance to His birth:

"From the Jewish villages of Nazareth and Kokhaba they travelled around the rest of the land and interpreted the genealogy they had [from the family traditions] and from the Book of Days [i.e. Chronicles] as far as they could trace it (Julius Africanus, as quoted by Eusebius HE 1.7.14)."

This tradition confimrs the natural implication about Jesus' virgin birth, namely that the Christmas story was first told by Jesus' family, who no doubt derived it from Mary, Jesus' mother. Of course, one might still ask which of the extant versions of the Christmas story did Jesus' family embrace. That question is irrelevant to the present thread.

Right, aside from being tangent to the OP, this is hardly a confirmation of anything.

(3) I now turn to your claims about the Prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. You overlook the fact that Matthew uses the Septuagint, a Greek OT translation used by Greek-speaking Jews in Palestine and by Jews outside of Palestine throughout the Mediterranean world. In the Septuagint, the Hebrew "almah" of Isaiah 7:14 is translated "parthenos," which means "virgin." You ignore the possibility that God wanted to fulfill the messianic prophecy in the form that most of Matthew's readers would have read!

This possibility you're raising is that God deliberately allowed the Septuagint to be mistranslated so that Matthew could incorrectly cite it? Really? So... what... God was mistaken the first time around, decided on his new plan, and then arranged this mistranslation? I take it you don't believe God is omnipotent then.

(4) Your claims about contextual difficulties imposes modern interpretive assumptions on a first-century mindset. Matthew employs the same pesher interpretive method that is employed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. (On this, see Harvard professor Krister Stendahl's book, "The School of Saint Matthew.") The pesher method allows a valid secondary contemporary prophetic application of OT texts.

You're ignoring the OP.

Again, if there is a valid secondary contemporary prophetic application of Isaiah 7 (which can only be derived from literally ripping it out of context), then what was the warning or promise attached to this prophecy? Did you even read the OP?

(5) Your point about Isaiah's "Emmanuel" (= "God with us") phrase misses the point.
Thomas acclaims the risen Jesus, "My Lord and my God (John 20:28)!" No king in Isaiah's day rated the status of "God with us." Furthermore, you ignore the next acclamation of messianic divinity in Isaiah 9:5: "A Son is given to us; authority rests upon His shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Of course, no contemporary of Isaiah's was worthy of such lofty titles.

I know what Immanuel means. Half the names in the Old Testament refer to the ancient Canaanite deity "El." Is Bethel really the house of God? Does God have to live there for that name to be valid? Bethel is *just a name*, just like Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:6 has nothing to do with anything here.

Please go back and read the OP.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You're most likely right in your view, I don't know I never actually read into that prophecy.

But while you're probably right, you're also wrong - and here's why.

Matthew 27:35 says that when they cast lots for Jesus clothes fulfilled the words of the prophet. But when you go to Psalms 22:18 you'll notice that this is a Psalm and not (seemingly) a prophecy. Why did it say this then?

Because Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, all of the OT, He said so Himself. When you read something in the Law or Prophets, it has deeper meanings than what's on the surface. It was all leading up to something, Someone, someone who would be the complete fulfillment and representation and all sorts of other things of Israel, of prophecy, etc.

I mean it has to be, or why else would it be written that he fulfilled prophecy in a Psalm? The disciples of Christ back then and even the Jews who didn't believe understood there were deeper meanings in their holy scriptures.


There's always going to be a reasonable explanation for things that go against scripture. Always. I know because I used to do the same thing. I'd find "a good one" and then google it and find an answer for it that would make a fool out of me.
Christ said you have to come to Him as a little child in order to be saved.

Blessed are the meek... and it's never too late until you die to make the choice to be humble.

I'm only doing one prophecy right now. Do you have a reasonable explanation for what's going on here in Isaiah 7?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The virgin birth narrative is extremely problematic. Even if we assume that Jesus existed and performed miracles, there is still zero evidence to corroborate Matthew's claim. On top of this, the claim itself appears to be a lie.

Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14, which says,

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

However, Matthew omitted over half of the actual prophecy. Verses 15 and 16 say,

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.


Aside from the obvious problem - Jesus is never referred to as Immanuel except here by Matthew - we are also left dealing with the fact that the latter half of the prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus. In fact, it would be nonsensical for it to involve Jesus because Isaiah was addressing a king several centuries before Christ was born and he told this king that his enemies would be defeated. That was the entire point of the prophecy. What good is it if a virgin gives birth? Who cares? Aside from being a medical mystery, this would have no significance to anyone for any reason. The significance of the prophecy is that Judah will survive her enemies. The point was that if the king saw Isaiah was correct about one future event, he was justified in assuming that Isaiah would be correct about another future event.

(A quick parenthetical reference is needed here. It is well known that the word here for "virgin" - "almah" in the Hebrew - does not necessarily refer to a virgin but just a young woman who hasn't yet had a child. Leveraging this fact, many scholars say that the prophecy is fulfilled in the next chapter - Isaiah 8:3 - but I'm not entirely convinced of that because the child is given a different name. If anyone can show me the scholarly work linking the two verses, I'd appreciate it.)

I've only ever gotten one possible explanation from Christians on this matter: you can simply yank a quote completely out of context. That is how prophetic utterances work. Thus, this was a double prophecy: a micro-prophecy for the king, which involved verses 14-16, and then a macro-prophecy about Jesus which involved only verse 14.

I reject the above outright as sophomoric and ridiculous because you cannot divorce a prophecy from its purpose. If a prophecy does not warn or guide, what is the point of it? To show that the prophet speaks for God? Perhaps, but that only works if there is good reason to actually believe that the prophecy was fulfilled. Even then, the prophecy is still pointless unless the prophet then goes to actually speak for God. If you have an unverifiable prophecy that is neither a guideline nor a warning, and nothing further is expounded upon it, then it is totally pointless. Nothing more than a parlor trick - even if the magic were to be real, a parlor trick would have no real significance. Jesus may as well have materialized ex nihilo as a fully grown man. There is no reason he had to be born of a virgin. Even if this all happened exactly as Christians believe it, what was the actual point of the prophecy? Recall above where I said, "The point was that if the king saw Isaiah was correct about one future event, he was justified in assuming that Isaiah would be correct about another future event." So we grant Christians the virgin birth prophecy and then what? What warning or promise is this? Establishing foreknowledge of this future event without then telling us what other future events to look for is astonishingly pointless. Matthew is obviously just trying to validate Jesus as the Christ by fabricating a link to the Old Testament - which was, of course, the only scripture at the time.

But before I go calling Matthew a liar, there are a couple possibilities to consider:

a) Matthew had no access to the latter verses
b) Matthew had access to the latter verses but never bothered to read them
c) Matthew was aware of the latter verses and saw no problem in what he was doing
d) Matthew was aware of the latter verses and lied, knowing many won't have the same access to his source material

I find d) to be most likely.

Hi NV, here's my approach:

In surmising how Matthew handled the abbreviated material he borrowed from Isaiah 7, we're going to have to take into consideration the presence of typology in the Bible; and we need to realize that not everything in ancient Jewish Scripture was written to comport to the same kind of stringent, literal communication patterns we use today in our scientific world.

With the above in mind, I think Jesus' birth is a typological fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 rather than an ultra-literal, straightforward fulfillment confirming an original context, and this is what Matthew picked up on. When Jesus was born, He came into the world in a way reflecting the prophetic patterning found in similar acts of God in the Old Testament.

And sure, sometimes we might think we 'see' some prophecies in the Bible given in a straightforward way, such as the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. But even if some prophecies are given in what seems to be a straightforward way, most often these prophecies are presented in a fragmentary fashion where their essence as detail about the Messiah is dislocated from other immediate connections with relevant prophecies in other parts of the Bible. So whether a prophecy is typological, or it is straightforward, both kinds only give obscure ideas to those who would later try to make sense of these puzzle pieces (like those persons among Jesus' audience who witnessed His actions and heard His claims).

And what prophetic pattern can we glean from Isaiah7:14, if that verse was the only one we were to reference. The pattern would be this:

1) The mother would be Jewish (Mary was Jewish).
2) The mother would be a young, Jewish maiden (Mary was that, and by the N.T. context, a virgin as well).
3) The young maiden's child would be somehow divinely providential for the world (i.e. associated with the idea of 'Emmanuel'-- and in this instance Jesus was the Son of God).
4) The maiden's child would be a male. (Jesus was definitely a male, not a female.)
5) The Lord would be instrumental in giving this child as a 'sign' to the Jews. (And Matthew relates that the Holy Spirit and His Angels were instrumental in the event of Jesus' Birth among the people of 1st century Palestine).

This is the prophetic pattern provided by Isaiah 7:14 alone, and this is what Matthew affirms about the birth of Jesus. :cool:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CodyFaith

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 9, 2016
4,856
5,104
31
Canada
✟158,564.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I'm only doing one prophecy right now. Do you have a reasonable explanation for what's going on here in Isaiah 7?
I know the nature of what it says when Jesus was fulfilling prophecy. I used that as an example to help point out to you that when it says Jesus fulfilled something at times it doesn't mean the straight forward approach in the sense that he was the actual child in Isaiah 7. He might be, I'm not sure I never studied it, but if he isn't there's an explanation for it which is provided in part in my post. I explained using an example of another verse the NT says Jesus fulfilled.

You're either a sheep or a goat. You either are humble and accept you can't know everything but take it in faith, trusting the One who does know everything, or you harden yourself on false beliefs because you have reasons you want Jesus not to be real, like a goat who goes his own ways and paths.

Jesus offers you eternal life, joy, peace, love. He offers you truth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Eryk

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 29, 2005
5,113
2,377
58
Maryland
✟109,945.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
It is well known that the word here for "virgin" - "almah" in the Hebrew - does not necessarily refer to a virgin but just a young woman who hasn't yet had a child.
Given the ethical standards of ancient Israel, virginity is strongly implied. The more precise term for virgin, betulah, is not used because that word refers to someone who is likely not engaged. But the prophecy refers to an almah, a woman who is likely engaged - as Mary was engaged to Joseph at the time Jesus was conceived.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You are correct to see that there is at least an unclear relationship between Isaiah 7-9 and Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 to refer to the virgin birth of Christ. But let me offer some explanation of what's going on in Isaiah 7-9 and why Matthew is making this connection.

It's helpful to remember at the outset that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience who likely knew the Old Testament Scriptures fairly well. If he grossly mishandled the OT Scriptures it would have been obvious to his original readers. But there doesn't appear to be any problems arising from Matthew's use of the OT from the first century. But getting to Isaiah...

As you may know, Isaiah 7-9 is dealing with Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimitic War. If you don't know about that situation, Syria (Rezin in Isaiah 7:1) and Israel (Pekah in Isaiah 7:1) wanted to form a coalition against Assyria, the super-power of the day. They wanted Ahaz, king of Judah, to join their coalition. When Ahaz refused they sought to compel him to join by going to war with him and besieging Jerusalem (Isaiah 7:1-2).

It is within this context that Isaiah goes to Ahaz. His instructions from the Lord to Ahaz are that Ahaz is to do nothing. God himself will take care of Syria and Israel. They will fizzle out and their coalition will come to nothing (Isaiah 7:7-9). The Lord offers to show Ahaz a sign through Isaiah - an unusual and generous offer. Ahaz can ask whatever he wants and God will provide a sign to demonstrate the truth of the claim (Isaiah 7:10-11). But Ahaz has no interest in a sign (Isaiah 7:12) in a display of false piety. The problem is that Ahaz has already made up his mind to send to Assyria for help (2 Kings 16:8). Isaiah warns that the consequences of aligning with Assyria will be devastating (Isaiah 7:17-25), but Ahaz refuses to head this warning.

Ahaz, king of God's people, has made a terrible mess for God's people because of his unfaithfulness. But even though Ahaz does not want a sign, God will provide one (Isaiah 7:14). A child will be born who will stand with God's people. This child will be the sign that "God is with us" (Immanuel) even though Ahaz has basically sold his people to Assyria. Furthermore, Immanuel will inherit the mess that Ahaz has made for his people (Isaiah 8:8).

If Isaiah 9 can be seen as continuing prophesy concerning this child mentioned in 7 and 8 then this child will be a king, the government will be upon his shoulders, and he will bring peace and salvation to his people.

From this, it's not terribly difficult to see why Matthew took Jesus to be the fulfillment of this promise. Jesus is the sign that "God is with us" and he inherits the mess of former kings (Ahaz included). His kingdom will never end (Isaiah 9:7) and he will save his people. And to put a cherry on top he was even born of an almah.

You completely ignored verses 15 and 16 of chapter 7, which is the entire point of the thread.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
(2 Samuel 2:25) And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the LORD.

This verse refers to Solomon, who is called Solomon everywhere else in the Bible. So a person can be referred to by another name, to declare something about them. Jedidah means "beloved of the Lord."

I'm well aware that Biblical figures can have more than one name. I'm saying that no one ever used this alternate name for Jesus except the one person taking a quote out of context. Do you see the problem?

He is, initially, but he switches from the singular "you" to plural beginning in verse 13. The prophecy of the virgin is given to a larger audience: "Hear ye now, O house of David". Christian interpreters believe this is the same child in Isaiah 9, who will sit on the throne of David and rule forever. So that's how we put the verse in context.

I don't care if it's the same child as in chapter 9. The point is that in verses 15 and 16, something specific is said about this child which does not apply to Jesus at all. You haven't addressed this, no Christian has, and I'm not holding my breath.

Given the ethical standards of ancient Israel, virginity is strongly implied. The more precise term for virgin, betulah, is not used because that word refers to someone who is likely not engaged. But the prophecy refers to an almah, a woman who is likely engaged - as Mary was engaged to Joseph at the time Jesus was conceived.

I'm not sure what ethical standards you're referring to. Their laws were based on racism and sexism, slavery and rape were permitted, and they regularly engaged in genocide. It's not clear that the almah couldn't be a sex slave or even a harlot.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I know the nature of what it says when Jesus was fulfilling prophecy. I used that as an example to help point out to you that when it says Jesus fulfilled something at times it doesn't mean the straight forward approach in the sense that he was the actual child in Isaiah 7. He might be, I'm not sure I never studied it, but if he isn't there's an explanation for it which is provided in part in my post. I explained using an example of another verse the NT says Jesus fulfilled.

You're either a sheep or a goat. You either are humble and accept you can't know everything but take it in faith, trusting the One who does know everything, or you harden yourself on false beliefs because you have reasons you want Jesus not to be real, like a goat who goes his own ways and paths.

Jesus offers you eternal life, joy, peace, love. He offers you truth.

Let me know when you intend to contribute to the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This is the interpretation I adopt.
I would agree that it seems ad-hoc. I remember reading the bible for the first time as a convert and this is one of the ones I researched. Here is a few thoughts I have on this passage.

1) A prophet is a person to speaks on behalf of God. One of the claims Jesus made was that the OT spoke of him and lead to him. In this case, there were many prophecies (not just the one you cite) that the prophets were speaking, but didn't know what they were fully saying, so to say that the prophecy is limited to the expectations of the prophet or the immediate purpose of the prophecy at hand wouldn't be a good objection. Isaiah spoke of the suffering servant. What significance did those passages provide as it wasn't inherently clear that the suffering servant was the branch/king, etc...?
2) God can fulfill his prophecies in any manner he pleases. It is hard to see why God would be limited to fulfill a prophecy that is based on the best inference a human can make to the explanation. To put it more succinctly, the passage does not explicitly state when/where/how many births we are talking about. If the OT were truly for/about Jesus, as he claimed, then wouldn't the best explanation be that all of the OT should point to him and find their ultimate fulfillment in Him?
3) The doctrine of original sin is not accepted by all Christian's, but it gives a good reason as to why Jesus would need to be born from a virgin. If he was 'conceived' by the Holy Spirit, then this would circumvent the original sin of Adam and give Jesus a sinless human nature.

None of this has anything to do with what I'm saying. I'm looking for an explanation as to how verses 15 and 16 refer to Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I thought I made the OP clear. I don't know why everyone keeps pounding on the issue of how Isaiah 7:14 is about Jesus when I'm making it clear that my gripe is with the next two verses not being about him.

Is it just that no one has an answer? If so, please just say that. I see right through these dodges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrystalDragon
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
The virgin birth narrative is extremely problematic. Even if we assume that Jesus existed and performed miracles, there is still zero evidence to corroborate Matthew's claim. On top of this, the claim itself appears to be a lie.

Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14, which says,

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

However, Matthew omitted over half of the actual prophecy. Verses 15 and 16 say,

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.


Aside from the obvious problem - Jesus is never referred to as Immanuel except here by Matthew - we are also left dealing with the fact that the latter half of the prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus. In fact, it would be nonsensical for it to involve Jesus because Isaiah was addressing a king several centuries before Christ was born and he told this king that his enemies would be defeated. That was the entire point of the prophecy. What good is it if a virgin gives birth? Who cares? Aside from being a medical mystery, this would have no significance to anyone for any reason. The significance of the prophecy is that Judah will survive her enemies. The point was that if the king saw Isaiah was correct about one future event, he was justified in assuming that Isaiah would be correct about another future event.

(A quick parenthetical reference is needed here. It is well known that the word here for "virgin" - "almah" in the Hebrew - does not necessarily refer to a virgin but just a young woman who hasn't yet had a child. Leveraging this fact, many scholars say that the prophecy is fulfilled in the next chapter - Isaiah 8:3 - but I'm not entirely convinced of that because the child is given a different name. If anyone can show me the scholarly work linking the two verses, I'd appreciate it.)

I've only ever gotten one possible explanation from Christians on this matter: you can simply yank a quote completely out of context. That is how prophetic utterances work. Thus, this was a double prophecy: a micro-prophecy for the king, which involved verses 14-16, and then a macro-prophecy about Jesus which involved only verse 14.

I reject the above outright as sophomoric and ridiculous because you cannot divorce a prophecy from its purpose. If a prophecy does not warn or guide, what is the point of it? To show that the prophet speaks for God? Perhaps, but that only works if there is good reason to actually believe that the prophecy was fulfilled. Even then, the prophecy is still pointless unless the prophet then goes to actually speak for God. If you have an unverifiable prophecy that is neither a guideline nor a warning, and nothing further is expounded upon it, then it is totally pointless. Nothing more than a parlor trick - even if the magic were to be real, a parlor trick would have no real significance. Jesus may as well have materialized ex nihilo as a fully grown man. There is no reason he had to be born of a virgin. Even if this all happened exactly as Christians believe it, what was the actual point of the prophecy? Recall above where I said, "The point was that if the king saw Isaiah was correct about one future event, he was justified in assuming that Isaiah would be correct about another future event." So we grant Christians the virgin birth prophecy and then what? What warning or promise is this? Establishing foreknowledge of this future event without then telling us what other future events to look for is astonishingly pointless. Matthew is obviously just trying to validate Jesus as the Christ by fabricating a link to the Old Testament - which was, of course, the only scripture at the time.

But before I go calling Matthew a liar, there are a couple possibilities to consider:

a) Matthew had no access to the latter verses
b) Matthew had access to the latter verses but never bothered to read them
c) Matthew was aware of the latter verses and saw no problem in what he was doing
d) Matthew was aware of the latter verses and lied, knowing many won't have the same access to his source material

I find d) to be most likely.

I am loath to call Matthew a liar. The problem lies in the translation difference between the original Hebrew and the Greek of the Septuagint. I suspect that Matthew either did not read Hebrew or had no access to a manuscript in Hebrew. It is common knowledge that Hebrew was a dying language at the time. However, Matthew was attempting to write his gospel using the Hebrew/Jewish literary tradition of haggadic midrash. He searched scripture for events that could be incorporated into his gospel and he thought that he had found one. It was also a very convenient way to refute the stories that were being told concerning the very questionable circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus.
 
Upvote 0