I have heard a great deal of talk denying the virgin birth of Jesus. One of the most interesting points made says the New Testament draws the validity of its doctrine from an Old Testament text that does not support the idea that a virgin would both conceive and give birth. If the foundation for the doctrine of the Virgin Birth isn’t there, then how could its substance be true? Wouldn’t it be mere opinion, if it were not fulfilling an actual Scripture in the older Testament?
Matthew says an angel told Joseph to name the child Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). He based this saying upon what was written by the prophet Isaiah who foretold that a virgin would both conceive and give birth to a child whose name would be Emmanuel or God with us! The controversy lies in the fact that the Scripture which Matthew has in mind, Isaiah 7:14, uses the Hebrew almah (H5959) for the maiden who would conceive. Hebrew scholars claim that the word almah refers to a young maiden of marriageable age, but not necessarily a virgin. The better word, if one wished to refer to a virgin, would have been bethulah (H1330), but since Isaiah used almah, he apparently was not referring to a virgin!
As I see it, the problem with the wording of Isaiah was not a controversy, until sometime after Jesus was crucified, and when the Gospel was being preached. The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), compiled by Hebrew scholars long before the birth of Jesus, translated Isaiah 7:14 to indicate virgin in the Greek. They used the word parthenos (G3933), the same word used by Matthew. The fact is that almah, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14, is used seven times in the Old Testament: Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3 & 6:8 and Isaiah 7:14. Of these Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 are definitely virgins; while the others imply the young women are virgins, and Isaiah 7:14 seems to say a virgin shall not only conceive, but a virgin shall also bear or give birth to the babe as well. There simply doesn’t seem to be a Jewish problem with “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 until after Jesus’ time.
On the other hand, if we look at the word bethulah, the Hebrew word scholars seem to unanimously claim does mean virgin, the compilers of the Septuagint have translated it 43 times into parthenos (G3933), the Greek for virgin, but the remaining 7 are either skipped or translated into korasion (G2877), meaning “girl.” However, what I find surprising is that one of those 50 occurrences of the Hebrew word for “virgin”, the bethulah (H1330) is mourning for the husband of her youth (Joel 1:8). Now how could that be, if bethulah is the Hebrew word for ‘virgin’?
Another point to consider is, in two places where bethulah is used in the Hebrew Scriptures it is defined as a young girl who has never known a man (Genesis 24:16 and Judges 21:12). If bethulah always means virgin (except for Joel 1:8) why would it need to be defined to a Jewish reader? Still another matter to consider is that in the surrounding context of one of those Scriptures, Genesis 24:16, almah is used as a synonym for bethulah. Rebecca is described in Genesis 24:16 using bethulah with the additional information that she had never known a man. Immediately before v.16 Abraham’s servant is praying, and Rebecca came in answer to that prayer. But when Abraham’s servant recalled the incident with Rebecca’s family in Genesis 24:43 he used the word almah instead of bethulah. It seems to me, in light of what the Septuagint translators have shown us and in this comparison of both words in context of the same incident, that both mean about the same thing—“a young woman of marriageable age.” In the context of the Jewish society where harlotry was disdained and even punishable with death, it is presumed these words indicate virginity.
Therefore, Matthew has it correct and there should really be no controversy at all among Biblical scholars. After all, no controversy even existed until at least a century or two after the Gospel had been preached. Moreover, the ancient Jewish scholars who wrote the Septuagint agree with Matthew’s interpretation (the word means virgin), and a comparison of the two Hebrew words used to describe a young woman of marriageable age shows they are synonyms, and, in the context of ancient Jewish society, that means virgin!
Smoodock's Blog 
10 responses to “Jesus ~ Born of a Virgin or a Young Girl?”
Hello again, I have more questions concerning… well… everything. Hope you can help me.
• When I read many places in OT (like Gen3:2-4) I often see that where ‘Angel of the Lord’ is mentioned, He is also called ‘Lord’ (Jehovah). I assume that in other places of OT where He isn’t directly called Lord He still is Lord and not just any created angel. If so does it mean that ‘Angel of the Lord’ in NT means the same (did translation preserve meaning)? Or in NT ‘Angel of the Lord’ could be any angels?
• I realized (by referencing Dan12:1 and Rev12:7) that Michael could be an ‘Angel of the Lord’ (Michael in Dan, Jesus in Rev). The question is this, if Michael was Lord, Who was born as a man and got resurrected, He couldn’t be archangel Michael anymore since men in resurrected form should be higher then angels (Heb2:9, Psalm 8:4-5). Maybe it is silly question, but what happened to the actual body of archangel Michael?
• As you explained in other topics, Adam’s actions were ‘snakelike’. Does Bible has any other such comparisons of ‘actions of man’ and ‘animal form’? Does Bible uses the same technique of comparisons as with Adam someplace else?
• It is not question, it’s just comment: as I look through the Bible with understanding of who satan really is I see more and more support for this theory. In OT I nowhere see fallen angels. Besides, as Jesus said in Mt12:25 “very kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation”. So Gods kingdom can not have division and so fallen angels.
Vlad, Hi, I am glad to hear from you again.
Concerning the Angel of the Lord, clearly in the Old Testament he was a particular Messenger whose name was YHWH and there is good reason to believe he is the very one who became Jesus. I have written a blog on this and can be found HERE.
Nevertheless, the New Testament is not so clear when it uses “angel of the Lord.” For example, An angel of the Lord appeared to Zechariah in Luke 1:11, but his name is Gabriel Luke 1:19, not YHWH. If Jesus is the Angel of the Lord spoken of in the Old Testament, how could this angel be appearing to and speaking with Joseph? In the Old Testament “Angel of the Lord” referred to one called YHWH who is called God, Almighty God and appeared Abraham, Jacob, and to Moses in the bush. It is he who thundered from Mt. Sinai and led the children of Israel in the wilderness. In the New Testament, the “angel of the Lord” appears to be just that—a messenger of the Lord. He is never once called God, nor can it be implied from anywhere in the New Testament. I have to believe the two phrases do not refer to the same being.
Concerning Jesus and Michael, simply because Michael is called “Archangel” does not make him an angelic being. All “arch-angel” means is “leader” or “one in authority over” the angels. What happened to Michael’s “body” is the same as what occurred to Jesus’ divine “body” before he became man (Philippians 2:6-7). When Scripture says Jesus was equal with God (the Father) it is referring to his bodily form. The Scripture says he “emptied himself” of his divine “form” and took to himself the “form” of a man. He existed as Spirit, but became physical. What occurred to Jesus before he became man, occurred to Michael, because Michael and Jesus are one and the same. Jesus/Michael was/is God; he is not and never had been an angelic being.
Concerning referring to Adam as an animal (snake), yes, the Scriptures do refer to men as animals from time to time. Jesus is the Lamb of God (John 1:29); Jesus referred to Herod Antipas as “that fox” (Luke 13:32); he also referred to men as dogs and swine (Matthew 7:6); Paul also warned the brethren to beware of dogs (Philippians 3:2), meaning unclean men who have no spiritual understanding. Of course God’s people are often called his sheep and leaders are at times referred to as goats (Zechariah 10:3). Alexander the Great, the king of Greece is referred to as a goat (Daniel 8:21).
Concerning your studies on God’s Kingdom, you are absolutely correct. I acknowledge the Spirit of God in you leading your studies.
• I noticed another place where archangel is mentioned: 1Th4:16. Does it say that archangel is another being than Lord or simply that Lord will descend having voice of archangel?
• If kingdom of God can not be divided and if there are no fallen angels than who are sons of God in Genesis if in Job and Psalms they are angels? Could they be prophets which described in 2Pet2:4 and Jud1:6? In which case sons of God has different meaning in different books.
Hi Vlad,
1Thessalonians 4:16 concerns the 2nd coming of Jesus. He descends with the shout of the Archangel, also called the Trump of God in the same verse. If shout answers to trump then Archangell answers to God! Matthew 25:31 speaks of the same incident where Jesus comes with all his holy angels. Arch = Leader and angel = angel; he is the Leader or Lord of all the angels, just as he is Lord over you and me.
Concerning “fallen angels”, there is no record of a war in heaven whereby angels rebelled against God. Revelation 12 is referring to the rebellion of man and has a reference to Jesus’ ministry as I referred to in an earlier comment. The “sons of God” or “sons of god” in Genesis 6 cannot refer to angels, because Genesis 1 reveals the truth that kind reproduces kind . No one can show that that which is spirit could reproduce anything through intercourse with mankind. No one can even show that angels are equipped bodily to reproduce at all. In fact, Jesus, himself, claims that angels do not reproduce or marry. We shall be like them according to our Lord and Savior. Therefore, Genesis 6:2 cannot be referring to angels. They are either the sons of God (meaning men of God’s righteous line through Seth), or they are sons of god (meaning men who were descended from the unrighteous line of Cain, called sons of the god – Adam) who took wives (plural) cp. Genesis 4:19 where Lamech, the 7th from Adam, had more than one wife.
Lord bless,
Eddie
*No one can show that that which is spirit could reproduce anything through intercourse with mankind.*
– I had impression that angels (heavenly beings, those that rejoiced when God created foundation of the Earth) are not simply spirits but do have bodies like we do. I’m not saying that it proves their ability to reproduce, I just want to figure out more about their appearance.