By: Matthew D. Dyer
Among those who deny the Deity of Jesus, many of them also deny the virgin birth. Before we can look at the objections to the virgin birth, let’s first look at the Scriptures where the virgin birth is mentioned.
Luke 1:26-35 states:
“And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
In this passage the Gospel of Luke clearly identifies Mary as a virgin which is rendered from the Greek word parthenos.[1] We also see in this passage that Luke references portions of Isaiah 9:6-7, revealing that he understood Jesus to be a fulfillment of this prophecy.
Matthew 1:21-23 states:
“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. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 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. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
Mary being pregnant, while betrothed, was no small matter. One can only imagine what was going through Joseph’s mind when he learned of this, before the angel came to him, because the Law of God would have called for Mary to be sentenced to death if she had not been a virgin and been unfaithful to Joseph.[2] Matthew than quotes Isaiah 7:14 as a fulfillment of Mary being a virgin and having a child.
Isaiah 7:14 states:
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
When reading an English translation of these Scriptures, you may be wondering why there is any objection to the virgin birth because it seems so clear. The main objection rests on the meaning of the Hebrew word al-maw’,[3] which is rendered as virgin in Isaiah 7:14. Some teach that this Hebrew word simply means a young woman of marriageable age and doesn’t have anything to do with virginity.
Jewish Rabbi Tovia Singer, who is notorious for putting out material against the virgin birth, and other Christian doctrines, stated the following in a web-article titled Does the Hebrew Word Alma Really Mean “Virgin”?:
“For nearly two millennia the Church has insisted that the Hebrew word almah עַלְמָה can only mean “virgin.” This is a vital position for defenders of Christianity to take because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.” The first Gospel quotes this well-known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus. The stakes are high for Christendom. If the Hebrew word alma does not mean a virgin, Matthew crudely misquoted the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.”[4]
Singer is correct in stating that the stakes are high for Christendom, if the doctrine of the virgin birth is proven incorrect. It would mean the Gospel of Matthew and Luke were wrong. Objectors like Singer, would argue that if Isaiah was truly speaking of a virgin, he would have used the Hebrew word bᵊṯûlâ[5] instead of the Hebrew word al-maw’. The word bᵊṯûlâ is most often used for a virgin. Which is true.
It is true that the Hebrew word al-maw’ does mean a young woman of marriageable age, sometimes translated a maiden, but it is also true that the Hebrew word al-maw’ doesn’t mean a non-virgin either. The Israelite patriarchs valued the virginity of their daughters at a much higher cost than most professing Christians do today. Which would mean a young Israelite women of marriable age were expected to be virgins. To prove the Israelites view towards virginity you can read at Deuteronomy 22:13-21 which states:
“If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”
As you can see from the above passage how serious virginity was to the Israelites. Unlike in the 21st century, how many Israelite young woman of a marriageable age do you think were running around that were not virgins? I would say very few. The biblical standard was for a al-maw’ to be a bᵊṯûlâ. We can see an example of this in the Book of Genesis concerning Rebekah.
Genesis 24:15-16 states:
“And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder. And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.”
The Hebrew word rendered as virgin in this passage is bᵊṯûlâ. Meaning a woman who has not yet had sexual relations. If we continue reading the word virgin appears again speaking of Rebekah.
Genesis 24:43 states:
“Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink”
In this verse, in the same chapter, speaking of the same woman, the Hebrew word al-maw’ is used. This means Rebekah was both an al-maw’ and a bᵊṯûlâ. Another place this Hebrew wordappears is in the Songs of Solomon where a al-maw’ is contrasted with queens and concubines.
Songs of Solomon 6:8 states:
“There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.”
R. Laird Harris in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament wrote the following concerning the usage of the Hebrew word al-maw’:
“Some translators interpret Mt 1:22-23 as being simply a comment by Matthew, but it is more reasonable to consider that the argument that convinced Joseph was the fact, pointed out to him by the angel, that such an event had already been predicted by Isaiah. There is no instance where it can be proved that ‘alma designates a young woman who Is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where ‘alma is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac. Also obvious is Ex 3:8. Song 6:8 refers to three types of women, two of whom are called queens and concubines. It could be only reasonable to understand the name of the third group, for which the plural of ‘alma is used, as meaning “virgins.”[6]
It is worth noting that in Matthew 1:23 the Greek word parthenos, which is rendered as virgin, is the same Greek word that appears in Isaiah 7:14 for virgin in the Greek Septuagint. This most likely means Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint. The Septuagint (also known as the LXX) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was translated around two hundred years before Christ in the city of Alexandria, Egypt, and is quoted by the Apostles in the New Testament more than the Hebrew. It was used by Christians more than the Hebrew, because the vast majority of Christians spoke Greek.
The Context of Isaiah Chapter 7
Another objection to the virgin birth is the accusation that Christians are taking Isaiah chapter 7 out of context, and that it has nothing to do with Jesus. This is partly due to Christians simply quoting Isaiah 7:14, without ever read or attempting to understand the context of the whole chapter. Let’s look at the chapter verse-by-verse:
Isaiah 7:1-2 states:
“And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.”
Ahaz began to reign about 738 years before Christ. At this time the Nation of Israel, also called Ephraim, and the Kingdom of Syria made an alliance with each other, and began to war with the Nation of Judah. When Ahaz, and the those of the House of David, heard this they were shaken with fear that they may be destroyed. Which puts their trust in the Lord into question because the Davidic Covenant given in 1 Chronicles 17:11-14 promised that the throne of the House of David would be established forever.
Isaiah 7:3-9 states:
“Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field; And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.”
In this passage, the Prophet Isaiah is instructed by God to go before King Ahaz, and bring his son Shearjashub with him, and tell the King that he should not fear this alliance. Because as long as Ahaz has faith in God these two nations won’t succeed, and within sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered from being a people, which is referring to the Assyrian captivity of the Northern House of Israel.
Isaiah 7:10-12 states:
“Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.”
In this passage, God knowing Ahaz was still fearful, spoke to him and told him to ask for a sign of the Lord’s promise to deliver the House of Judah and the House of David from this alliance. Ahaz declines as he does not want to tempt God by asking Him for a sign.
Isaiah 7:13 states:
“And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?”
In this verse, God doesn’t wait for Ahaz to ask for a sign, God gives him one anyway addressed to the House of David.
Isaiah 7:14 states:
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
The sign in which God gave Ahaz was addressed to the House of David, it was a sign of their survival and deliverance. He told him that the sign of their survival would be a virgin conceiving a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel, which means God with us. Now I am sure you can imagine that this confusing sign was probably not very confronting to Ahaz, and he probably had no idea this promise would not be fulfilled for another 738 years. But that was God’s point. This promise will be fulfilled in the future, which means there would still be a House of David in existence, which Jesus would be born out of.
Those who deny the virgin birth will object by saying why would God give Ahaz a sign that won’t take place until long after this conflict has been resolved and Ahaz’s bones have turned to dust. But the point of the prophecy was to reveal how God will fulfill the Davidic Covenant, and not allow the House of David to be destroyed. Which is what Ahaz was wrongfully fearful that would happen.
Isaiah 7:15 states:
“Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.”
Rev. Joseph Benson stated the following concerning Isaiah 7:15 in Benson’s Commentary of the Old and New Testament:
“The common food of children in that country, where these articles were in great abundance, and of the best sort. The principal meaning of the verse seems to be, that this child, called Immanuel, should be brought up in the usual manner, “the same republic still continuing, and the cultivated fields, unoccupied by the enemy, abundantly supplying all necessary food; and that thus he should grow up to maturity.” The words, however, also signify, that though he should be miraculously conceived, and should be possessed of a nature truly divine, yet he should be also human, subject to all the infirmities of our nature, standing in need of food for his support as other children do, and by the help thereof growing up from childhood to manhood.”
Thomas Coke wrote the following concerning Isaiah 7:15 in his A Commentary on the Holy Bible:
“The meaning of this verse is, that this child, called Immanuel, should be educated in the common method; the cultivated fields, unoccupied by the enemy, abundantly supplying all necessary food; and that thus he should grow up to maturity. The prophet is thought in these words to refer to the human nature of Jesus Christ. Butter and honey, or milk and honey, were a very common food of infants among the ancient Jews.”
According to Benson and Coke, this verse simply means this divinely conceived child will be brought forth in a normal manner. Such as we see with Jesus in the New Testament.
Isaiah 7:16 states:
“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.”
Deniers of the virgin birth point out that verse 16 is not speaking of Jesus, because this child was to be born before the conflict was over, and Jesus was born 738 years later. Which is correct, this verse is not speaking of Jesus. Remember there is a child present with Isaiah at this meeting with King Ahaz, and that is Isaiah’s son Shearjashub, who God commanded him to bring. Isaiah gives the sign of Immanuel to Ahaz, which reveals the House of David would survive this war. Than Isaiah uses his own son as an illustration to say that before this child, Shearjashub, shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, this conflict will be over. Which would mean that Shearjashub was a very young child at this time.[7]
Matthew Henry wrote the following concerning Isaiah 7:16 in Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible:
“Here is another sign in particular of the speedy destruction of these potent princes that were now a terror to Judah, Isa_7:16. “Before this child (so it should be read), this child which I have now in my arms” (he means not Immanuel, but Shearjashub his own son, whom he was ordered to take with him for a sign, Isa_7:3), “before this child shall know how to refuse the evil and choose the good” (and those who saw what his present stature and forwardness were would easily conjecture how long that would be), “before this child be three or four years older, the land that thou abhorrest, these confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast such an enmity to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both their kings, both Pekah and Rezin,” who were in so close an alliance that they seemed as if they were the kings of but one kingdom. This was fully accomplished; for within two or three years after this, Hoshea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (2Ki_15:30), and, before that, the king of Assyria took Damascus, and slew Rezin, 2Ki_16:9. Nay, there was a present event, which happened immediately, and when this child carried the prediction of in his name, which was a pledge and earnest of this future event. Shearjashub signifies The remnant shall return, which doubtless points at the wonderful return of those 200,000 captives whom Pekah and Rezin had carried away, who were brought back, not by might or power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts.”
As you can see, those that deny the virgin birth don’t have any grounds to do so, and therefore the miraculous birth of our Saviour, Jesus the Christ, can be proclaimed from Holy Scripture without apology.
[1] Strong’s Greek Lexicon #3933
[2] Deuteronomy 22:23-24
[3] Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon #5959
[4] http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/
[5] Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon #1330 – Pronounced: beth-oo-law’
[6] Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, p. 672
[7] Some Christians will attempt to say that Isaiah 7:14-16 is a “dual-prophecy” in order to answer objectors when they state that verse 16 is not about Jesus. This is problematic because than we need to find a virgin who fulfilled the first prophecy during the life of Ahaz, which there is no record of in the biblical text. The Scriptures are harmonized if verse 14-15 is speaking of Jesus, and verse 16 of Shearjashub.
Christian America Ministries 