Virgin birth

[Dianalevich]

Here is an excerpt from an article my husband Chris wrote on our site. We would be interested to learn the thoughts of others concering the “Virgin Birth”

1) Virgin Birth – While it is professed that Jesus was born of a virgin in the books of Matthew and Luke, His birth is not mentioned in Mark or John. What makes it worse is that no where else in the New Testament will you find the mention of the virgin birth. It is extremely unlikely that Peter, Paul, and the Apostles would not mention Jesus' virgin birth every chance they got, as modern Christians do in an effort to convince people that Jesus was/is of God.

2) Virgin Birth Prophecy – Isaiah 7:14 is said to foretell the Virgin birth of Christ. This passage has been debated by scholars for years, because the word for virgin found in Isaiah 7 can also mean – and most likely means – 'young woman- not virgin. Isaiah 7 actually tells us how God, through Isaiah, promised a sign to King Ahaz to show him that the Lord was still with Judah. The prophecy was of a young woman having a baby (in the King's immediate future), and King Ahaz's two adversaries would lose their power to come against King Ahaz before the child (said to be born of a virgin in most English translations) would know right from wrong. While Isaiah 7 is in the Old Testament, I mention it here because the author of Matthew obviously didn't understand the prophecy in Isaiah 7, as Matthew claims that Isaiah was referring to Jesus Christ in Matthew 1:23. Interestingly enough, the Jews were not and still are not looking for the Messiah to come to earth via a virgin birth.

Looking forward to this discussion -God Bless You and Happy Jesus Day! Diana

[Anonymous]

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/saints/symeon_anna.htm

Quote

St. Symeon was one of the famous Seventy, who were chosen to translate the Bible from Hebrew into Greek in the time of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.). St. Symeon worked conscientiously, but when, translating the prophet Isaiah, he came to the prophecy: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,” he was puzzled. He took a knife to scratch out the word “virgin” and substitute “young woman,” and translate it thus into Greek. But at that moment an angel of God appeared to him and held him back from his intention, explaining to him that the prophecy was true and rightly expressed. And to confirm its veracity, the messenger from God said that he, Symeon, by the will of God, would not die until he had seen the Messiah born of a virgin. The righteous Symeon rejoiced at these heavenly tidings, left the prophecy unchanged and thanked God that He had found him worthy to live to see the Promised One.

search Google for:

knife to scratch out the word “virgin” and substitute

Also:

http://eaglevision.com.my/ch1birth.htm

[Proclaimer]

Yes that is an interesting one. It was discussed earlier in one of the forums here. I still do not have a concrete opinion with this.

[Dianalevich]

Thanks for responding! This is one my husband and I continue to look at and pray for His wisdom. God Be with you! Diana

[NickHassan]

Quote (Dianalevich @ July 09 2005,16:03)

Here is an excerpt from an article my husband Chris wrote on our site.  We would be interested to learn the thoughts of others concering the “Virgin Birth” 1) Virgin Birth – While it is professed that Jesus was born of a virgin in the books of Matthew and Luke, His birth is not mentioned in Mark or John. What makes it worse is that no where else in the New Testament will you find the mention of the virgin birth. It is extremely unlikely that Peter, Paul, and the Apostles would not mention Jesus' virgin birth every chance they got, as modern Christians do in an effort to convince people that Jesus was/is of God. 2) Virgin Birth Prophecy – Isaiah 7:14 is said to foretell the Virgin birth of Christ. This passage has been debated by scholars for years, because the word for virgin found in Isaiah 7 can also mean – and most likely means – 'young woman- not virgin. Isaiah 7 actually tells us how God, through Isaiah, promised a sign to King Ahaz to show him that the Lord was still with Judah. The prophecy was of a young woman having a baby (in the King's immediate future), and King Ahaz's two adversaries would lose their power to come against King Ahaz before the child (said to be born of a virgin in most English translations) would know right from wrong. While Isaiah 7 is in the Old Testament, I mention it here because the author of Matthew obviously didn't understand the prophecy in Isaiah 7, as Matthew claims that Isaiah was referring to Jesus Christ in Matthew 1:23. Interestingly enough, the Jews were not and still are not looking for the Messiah to come to earth via a virgin birth. Looking forward to this discussion -God Bless You and Happy Jesus Day!  Diana

Hi D,
What Matthew wrote is scripture in it's own right.It is not false or all scripture is false. It is further clarification by God in his own perfect timing.

[Proclaimer]

From what I can see (even ignoring that prophecy), is Joseph wanting to put his wife to be, away, because she was with child. But the angel told Joseph that the child was from God.

Matthew's use of the scripture seems strange in that the scripture is talking about something else. But often we see that a physical thing/story/parable is used to reveal the spiritual truth.

E.g., Psalms 22:14-18
14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

[WhiteMateria]

It may not be clear that Mary was a virgin when it happened but what is clear that it was not another man's seed that impregnated her.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Why is it that Jesus' birth is only but a small mention in the gospels? Which is more important for us today? His death or his birth? Some churches do not accept December 25th as his birthday for there were shepperds tending to their flocks in December? To cold – And also where is December 25 as the birthday of Christ in the Bible? You won't find it I assure you – But his birth really is not that important so much as his death which is what Christians should remember each Sunday or whenever you go to service and partake in the bread and fruit of the vine. And I don't mean just Catholics but other churches do that to.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Dianalevich @ July 09 2005,16:03)

Here is an excerpt from an article my husband Chris wrote on our site. We would be interested to learn the thoughts of others concering the “Virgin Birth” 1) Virgin Birth – While it is professed that Jesus was born of a virgin in the books of Matthew and Luke, His birth is not mentioned in Mark or John. What makes it worse is that no where else in the New Testament will you find the mention of the virgin birth. It is extremely unlikely that Peter, Paul, and the Apostles would not mention Jesus' virgin birth every chance they got, as modern Christians do in an effort to convince people that Jesus was/is of God. 2) Virgin Birth Prophecy – Isaiah 7:14 is said to foretell the Virgin birth of Christ. This passage has been debated by scholars for years, because the word for virgin found in Isaiah 7 can also mean – and most likely means – 'young woman- not virgin. Isaiah 7 actually tells us how God, through Isaiah, promised a sign to King Ahaz to show him that the Lord was still with Judah. The prophecy was of a young woman having a baby (in the King's immediate future), and King Ahaz's two adversaries would lose their power to come against King Ahaz before the child (said to be born of a virgin in most English translations) would know right from wrong. While Isaiah 7 is in the Old Testament, I mention it here because the author of Matthew obviously didn't understand the prophecy in Isaiah 7, as Matthew claims that Isaiah was referring to Jesus Christ in Matthew 1:23. Interestingly enough, the Jews were not and still are not looking for the Messiah to come to earth via a virgin birth. Looking forward to this discussion -God Bless You and Happy Jesus Day! Diana

re 1. If a teaching is mentioned even once in Scripture, that is suffcient for me to be obedient to the Lord and the teachings of His Word. Secondly, that the event is not mentioned by some other writers of Scripture means absolutley nothing in so far as determining if it happened, if one used this same reasoning process with other teachings, you could, I hope, imagine what we would be left with as far as the remaining content of the Bible. Saying that it is extremely unlikely that the other apostles would not mention the virgin birth every chance they got is nothing but pure speculation. Who is the author of this article to presdume to know or dictate to the apostles what they should or should not mention?

re 2 for your reading pleasure: “How can Isaiah 7:14 be considered a prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ? Isaiah 7:16 seems to preclude this entirely, and Isaiah 8:3 seems to fulfill the prophecy.

In a time of great national crisis, the kingdom of Judah was threatened with conquest by the northern alliance of apostate Samaria and pagan Damascus (Isa 7:4-6). Had they succeeded, Judah would have become a mere satellite to Samaria and later would have been destroyed as a nation by the Assyrian invaders (who destroyed Samaria itself within fifteen years of this time).

Since Judah was governed by a wicked and ungodly king named Ahaz, its position as the one Bible-believing nation on the face of the earth was gravely imperiled. Therefore its greatest need was for a deliverer who would rescue it from sin and exalt it to a position of great spiritual force, witnessing to the rest of mankind about the way of salvation. In these prophecies concerning Immanuel, the Lord met Judah's needs.

Isaiah 7:14 promises that “the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel .” Who is this sign to be? In what sense will he be “God with us”? From the references that follow, it is quite apparent that there is to be a type of Immanuel who will be born in the near future as proof that God is with His people to deliver them.

Yet also an antitype will be born in the more remote future who will be both God and man, and He will deliver His people not only from human oppressors but also from sin and guilt. Furthermore, He will reign as David's descendant and successor forever and ever. Thus the twofold need will be met both by the typical Immanuel and by the antitypical divine Redeemer.

Isaiah 7:16 clearly refers to a child who is to be born within a very few years: “For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good , the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” (NASB). Normally at the age of twelve or thirteen, the Jewish lad was considered old enough to assume full responsibility for his own sins; then he would learn to read and expound the Pentateuch as a barmitsvah (a “son of the commandment”).

Now if this promise was given in 735 B.C., and if the time-indicator child was born within a year or so thereafter, then he would have been twelve by 722 B.C., when Samaria fell to the Assyrian besiegers and was permanently destroyed as a nation. Damascus had already been stormed and pillaged by the troops of Tiglath-pileser III in 732. This earlier date was also predicted, for in Isaiah 8:4 we read of the son who is to be born to Isaiah by the prophetess: “Before the boy knows how to cry out `my father' or `my mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria” (NASB).

By 732 the boy who served as the type of Immanuel would be two years of age, and therefore old enough to say “Daddy” and “Mommy.” Quite clearly this little son of the prophet who bore the God-given name of Maher-shalal-hash-baz (see Isa. 8:3) was to be the time-indicator for the fulfillment of this prediction of Judah's deliverance from the current crisis.

At the time Isaiah 7:14 was given, the “prophetess” mentioned in 8:3 would have been a virgin and would have been known to King Ahaz and his court as the woman to whom Isaiah (presumably a widower by this time, having lost through death the mother of Shear-jashab mentioned in 7:3) was engaged. Before they married, the Lord revealed to Isaiah that the first child he would have by this godly young woman would be a boy: and the Lord told him what name to call him: “Hasten to the booty, the spoil is running away!” (which is the meaning of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, intended as an encouragement to the Assyrian invaders against the Damascus-Samaria coalition).

By the time this boy reached the age of twelve the invaded regions of Israel would be so utterly laid waste by the Assyrians that much of it would revert to pastureland; and the erstwhile cultivator of orchards and wheatfields would find his property reduced to a mere “heifer and a pair of sheep” (Isa. 7:21), and he would be living on a diet of curds and wild honey (vv. 15, 22). Clearly, then, Isaiah's second son was to serve as the type of the coming Immanuel.

Yet it is also apparent from what follows that there is a far greater person in view, who will come as the divine-human antitype and will in His own person be Immanuel, God Incarnate. It is significant that Palestine is from that time on to be known as the land of Immanuel (see Isa. 8:8: “your land, O Immanuel”). This is something far more meaningful than the land of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. It is because of Immanuel that the people and land of Israel are guaranteed a key role in God's program of redemption. There will come that mighty Redeemer of whom it is promised in 9:6; “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity [as the Hebrew 'abi-`ad
should properly be rendered], Prince of Peace.” Verse 7 continues to speak of His messianic rule. Plainly, this refers to God Incarnate, the divine-human King, Jesus Christ, whose sovereign rule will eternally endure, because He Himself will never pass away.

In confirmation of this Christ reference of Isaiah 7:14, the New Testament says in Matthew 1:22-23: “Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, `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'” (NASB).

Perhaps a brief comment should be made concerning the word for “virgin” used in Isaiah 7:14. The root meaning of `almah is “maiden” or “young woman.” It is therefore not as precise a word for virgin as the Hebrew betulah, which is defined in Genesis 24:16 (in reference to Rebekah) as a young woman who has never had sexual relations.

Yet it is also true that in the seven occurrences of `almah in the singular throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the word never refers to a maiden who has lost her virginity but only to one who is in fact unmarried and chaste–as in Genesis 24:43, where Rebekah the virgin (betulah) is also referred to as an `almah. By Hebrew usage, then, this word is about equivalent to the idea of “virgin,” even though it is less precise than betulah.

It should be observed that `almah was an ideal term for the twofold aspect of the Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. The future mother of the antitype, Isaiah's wife-to-be, was a virgin up until the night of her wedding. But the Virgin Mary was a virgo intacta at the time the angel announced to her that she would become the mother of Jesus. Joseph had no carnal knowledge of her until after her firstborn Son was delivered, according to Matthew 1:24-25.” (Archer, Gleason Ency of Bible Difficulties)

“ISAIAH 7:14 —Is this verse a prophecy about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?
PROBLEM: The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 concerns the conception of a virgin and the bringing forth of a son whose name would be Immanuel. However, verse 16 seems to place the birth of the child before the invasion of the Assyrian armies and the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C. , and Isaiah 8:3 seems to be a fulfillment of this prophecy. How can this be a prophecy about the virgin birth of Jesus?
SOLUTION: The fulfillment of this prophecy may be two-fold. Because of the desperate situation which the people of Israel faced, God promised to give them a sign that would assure them that He would ultimately deliver His people out of bondage. Many scholars believe this sign came in two ways. First, it came as a sign of the physical deliverance of Israel from the bondage to which they were going under the invading Assyrians. Second, it came as a sign of the spiritual deliverance of all of God’s people from the spiritual bondage to Satan. The first aspect of the sign was fulfilled in the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz as recorded in Isaiah 8:3 . The second aspect of the sign was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ at Bethlehem as recorded in the Gospels.
The word translated “virgin” ( almah ) refers to a young maiden who has never had sexual relations with a man. The wife of Isaiah who bore the son in fulfillment of the first aspect of the prophecy was a virgin until she conceived by Isaiah. However, according to Matthew 1:23–25 , Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin even when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus. The physical conception and birth of the son of Isaiah was a sign to Israel that God would deliver them from physical bondage to the Assyrians. But, the supernatural conception and birth of the Son of God was a sign to all of God’s people that He would deliver them from spiritual bondage to sin and death.” (Geisler, Norm When Critics Ask)

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
Good stuff.
But no mention of Jesus Christ can ignore the fact that from his baptism he was indwelled by the Spirit of God. It was not God who became incarnate at his birth but the Son of God.Every reference to his work and power is also a reference to the source of that power and the doer of the work which is God himself as Spirit.

[Dianalevich]

Thanks for all the information to my post!  I have a difficult time specifially with the two-fold reasoning that was giving in epistimanic's post.  Where does it say in scripture that the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy is a two-fold prophecy?  I am unaware of any.  Scholars, like any of us, can also have their opinions.   As far as the translation for the word virgin, again, it is speculation for the reason given.  In Romans 1:1-3 (NIV)1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,  This scripture tells me that Jesus was born in the line of David.  We know that Jesus was human and still the Son of God.  I don't believe any of us will truly have the “truth” until we meet our creator.  Its frustrating when there seems to be so much controversy regarding what one would think to be some of the basics of the Christian faith.  I believe that the two greatest commandments (Mark 12:28-30) is the simpliest way to explain our Father and His Son to new believers.  I will continue to study and pray – God Bless You!  Peace, Diana

[NickHassan]

Hi D,
The answer is in what Jesus told us to do.
Ask the Father for the Spirit. He gives freely to His children as He wants them to have everything but the Spirit is the Key to seeing the kingdom.

[Christofer]

Ask the Father – yes! But when He unfolds the answers – what do you do when you discover things that should not be – even within the Bible itself?

Some would call this being deceived, but I call it listening to the Spirit of Truth – and ignoring the traditions of the men who claim to be Christian leaders. The road is narrow – we should never forget that.

[NickHassan]

Hi C,
The Spirit and the Word work together.The Word is written by the Spirit and so is another reference point for us. We are told the Spirit reminds us of what Jesus said so we can check our teaching from within by what is written and we must do so.
There are many false spirits too so we have to be sure we are rightly founded in Christ and know the Word before we follow any “voices”. Most who follow “voices” are listening to demons.
God's Spirit is gentle and righteous and the burdens given us are light and not heavy. Paul waited 13 years before he began ministry.
Hope this helps.

[epistemaniac]

we should never think that Christianity begins and ends with us, however… the questions that we ask… the things that we find in the Bible… none of this is new…. while we can never lift tradition to be equal in authority to Scripture, we should also never forget that we are not the first ones to have the Spirit, we are not the first ones to examine the Scriptures…. at this juncture, I will allow another voice from the past more ably explain what I mean… that our Christian predessessors should not be ignored, nor, placed on too high an altar…

“….. every inducement to search the Holy Scriptures should be placed in the way of our ministers, and to the younger brethren some guidance should be proffered as to the works most likely to aid them in their studies. Many are persuaded that they should expound the Word, but being unversed in the original tongues they can only fall back upon the help of their English Concordances, and are left floundering about, when a sound comment would direct their thoughts. True, the Holy Spirit will instruct the seeker, but he works by means. The Ethiopian eunuch might have received divine illumination, and doubtless did receive it, but still, when asked whether he understood the Scripture which he read, he replied, “How can I unless some man shall guide me?” The guiding man is needed still. Divines who have studied the Scriptures have left us great stores of holy thought which we do well to use. Their expositions can never be a substitute for our own meditations, but as water poured down a dry pump often sets it to work to bring up water of its own, so suggestive reading sets the mind in motion on its own account…..

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for these great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt.” (Spurgeon, Commenting on Commentaries) found, among other places, at http://www.bible-researcher.com/commentaries1.html

blessings

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
The Holy Spirit is given to individuals, not to traditions or theologies. By all means we should listen for the voice of the Spirit in those who claim it but often we find other voices, those of strangers. Test all things, even the words of so called “divines” lest they be deceivers and test them against what is known to be true-the Word of God.
Sooner or later we have to stand on our own feet and let go of the hands of others such as tradition. Hiding behind them is not safety.

Gal 5.25
” If we live by the Spirit let us also walk by the Spirit..”

[Christofer]

Nick –

It helps to hear compassion in your post – but the end result is that when I looked at the Bible – looked within – and went to Him in prayer – I found that there is layer after layer of problems created by men – like an onion and its skins. Peeling the skin away brings us closer to the core – but it is a tearful experience.

[NickHassan]

Hi C,
Most of what is said here is to the unsaved and not the saved. It is like Paul speaking in Athens, a city full of idols and his words were not entirely in vain but most were mockers and not interested in the amazing salvation that was preached there.

[Dianalevich]

Nick – When you refer to the Word of God, my heart automatically thinks of Yeshua, fullfillment of God's promise. So many people put faith in the bible when in fact, I believe that the bible is a great resource for us but God's “Word” is written on our hearts and minds (Jeremiah 33:31). The “true” word or book of God, does that really exist GBU, Diana

[NickHassan]

Hi,
“You must eat my flesh and drink my blood”

In one way Jesus is the Word.

“man cannot live by bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God”

[Christofer]

This might seem off topic – but the Bible is written by men – inspired at best. I believe that Jesus didn't write a book – as the prophets did – because His Gospel is truly meant to be delivered in person – not writings. The Apostles were ordered to 'teach the Gospel to all nations' (Mt 28:19-20).

The Bible is the best earthly resource we have on Jesus – but there is a greater resource – namely the Holy Spirit. I believe that if we seek – we will find – and we find by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible is called the Word of God – but I do not think it is a suitable title – considering that Jesus is the actual Word. I like to say the Word of God is in the Bible – but the Bible is not the Word of God itself.

[Author]

Posts