The Old Testament Didn't Predict the Virgin Birth
of Jesus
Isaiah 7:14. The Virgin shall conceive and bear a son called Emmanuel which
means God is with us.
Alleged Fulfilment: Jesus being born of Mary who was a virgin.
New Testament Interpretation: The Matthew gospel says the prophecy
predicts the birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mary.
The Truth: The Gospel of Matthew alone seems to tell us that Jesus was
conceived of a virgin. He read parthenos in the Septuagint the translation of
the old Testament Book of Isaiah and quoted the verse with parthenos in it. But
the original Hebrew – and it is only the original that counts, the word
translated virgin was almah which meant a young woman. The term virgin usually
meant a sexually inexperienced female but not always (page 29, The Womb and the
Tomb). In the NABs Biblical Dictionary and Concordance under VIRGIN it is
admitted that every unmarried girl was called a virgin for brevity and out of
habit (page 239). In Jewish Rabbinic tradition, a virgin could mean a girl who
had had sex but was not fertile. Perverted marriages with minors were allowed in
those days. The Rabbis actually held that if a child was born before a girl
started to menstruate that the birth could be called a virgin birth and,
obviously, the conception would be a virginal conception (page 27). It is
nonsense to deny that Matthew could have meant that Mary was this kind of
virgin. Some say there is no evidence that he did but then there is no evidence
that he meant a literal virgin either. Those who believe that it would not be as
likely for Joseph to have married a minor who was therefore unlikely to be a
literal virgin if he was a widower are also talking rubbish. A virgin who is
raped is psychologically a virgin though not one physically. Was Mary raped?
Some argue that God would not let the mother of his son be raped by her husband
or anybody else when she was only a child herself. That is also an absurd
argument. Look what God let the people do to Jesus.
Isaiah 8:1-4 says the sign is not so much that that the woman will
have the baby but that the baby will live long enough to witness an
event. Why would something as mundane as that be a sign? Plainly
because the prophet is claiming God tells him the future. It is
that simple and brazen. Thus any fancy interpretations to get
it to fit Jesus are out.
The Isaiah prophecy was meant to be a sign for King Ahaz for God told Ahaz when
giving it that it was a sign for him. He told Ahaz what would happen to the two
kingdoms Ahaz opposed before the child would learn to choose the good and refuse
the evil. Some say that a woman giving birth was not much of a sign so God had
Jesus more in mind that anything else. They say that Isaiah used a word for
young woman that might mean virgin. They say that as a normal birth was no sign,
Isaiah was predicting a virgin birth.
But the prophecy reads that the birth and the maturing of the child are just
mentioned to set a time scale for the fulfilment of the prophecy. Moreover, God
could have considered his ability to predict a son coming to be a sufficient
sign. The name of the child is Emmanuel and later we are told his name is
Mahershalalhashbaz. But the child could have had two names or Emmanuel could
have been a title for it means God with us. It could have been a nickname used
by God. God is with us refers to God destroying the two kingdoms for Israel. To
say that the prophecy refers to the woman’s son and then that it means Jesus in
a secondary or symbolical sense is crazy. To say it refers to Jesus as well as
Emmanuel would be to say it is a symbolic prophecy of Jesus who had similarities
to Emmanuel and was the real Emmanuel. Any prophet whose prophecies fail could
say the failed ones were symbolic so that he can dodge the attacks of reason.
Emmanuel, according to the prophecy, needs to learn how to refuse evil but the
Jesus of the Christians does not because he already knows and cannot sin. It is
odd that the Lord told Ahaz that he could ask for any sign from God that he
wanted and Ahaz was not chastised for refusing. Ahaz stated that he would not
put God to the test by looking for a sign. The Church says Ahaz was being tested
here. But how could it be wrong to ask for a sign when God offers to do one? The
refusal was churlish.
God gave Ahaz a small sign indicating that Ahaz didn’t need a big one. But he
obviously did when he had the faithlessness to object when God made him a kind
offer. But that doesn't matter to the writer of the prophecy or seem to have
occurred to him. So anyway, God approved of Ahaz being anti-miracle despite his
great faith. God is saying it is immoral to tempt the Lord by going to see
miracles. Therefore the God of Isaiah did not foretell Jesus who allegedly
attracted people who wanted to see miracles. He did not even approve of him. The
only miracle or sign God cared about was speaking his own message and predicting
the future, therefore Isaiah would have been horrified that the Greek Septuagint
dared to say he predicted the virgin birth. But even if it did it could mean
that a girl that was a virgin now would conceive meaning cease to be a virgin
and bear a son.
Matthew perverted the words of Isaiah in a most profane way to misuse him as
evidence for Jesus. That Matthew had to resort to such desperate measures shows
that he was making up the story about the birth and infancy of Jesus. He could
have used affidavits but he couldn’t.
JP Holding says that Matthew never says the almah text is
about Mary being about a virgin but about her being suitable for wedlock and
having a child. But the way Matthew uses the prophecy tells you different.
You don't argue that a promise that a girlready for having babies having a baby
is a sign. It is so mundane is not to be considered a prophecy unless
there was something odd predicted - perhaps that she would be a virgin mother.
It is dishonest to argue that material that mightn’t even be prophetic is
evidence that God has gazed into the future.