Smoodock's Blog

Perhaps no prophecy in the Old Covenant text is more challenged than that in Isaiah 7:14, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and call his name Immanuel.” If this prophecy is about Mary and Jesus, and if it is provably authentic, then, perhaps, it should be the goto text for the proof of the Gospel. After all, whoever heard of such a thing before Jesus’ birth or afterwards? As a miracle, it would be unique in history, but as a text, perhaps no other has been attacked more by opponents of Christianity, and no other has been used by the baser sort of men who hold it not only as a ridiculous, unbelievable joke, but, ignoring all graceful communication, accuse believers of being ignorant and gullible religious folk, whose opinions need to be thrust to the periphery in society. After all, intelligent people certainly don’t want such folks to have any real authority to make decisions for the majority—do they?

However, let’s consider the context of the prophecy in order to see what the hullabaloo is all about. 700 years prior to the birth of Jesus, Isaiah was told by the Lord to go to an evil king, Ahaz, who ruled the kingdom of Judah at that time. Moreover, at this point in Judah’s history, they were under a threat from their northern neighbors Israel and Syria, who wanted to replace Ahaz with a man of their choosing and thereby have a friendly nation to the south in the case of a needed alliance against a common foe.

Isaiah told Ahaz to ask God for a sign, or a miracle, whether as deep as Sheol or as high as the heavens (cp. the sign Hezekiah asked of God in 2Kings 20:7-11). In other words, ask for a sign and don’t make it easy, push the envelope of your imagination. Yet, Ahaz declined! (Isaiah 7:12). He was an unbeliever and didn’t want to appear foolish. Therefore, Isaiah prophesied, not to Ahaz and the threat he was under from his two northern neighbors, but to the House of David, vis-à-vis he used plural pronouns addressing the kings in David’s genealogy. Isaiah 7:14 then is as much a sign to Ahaz as it is to Jeconiah the last king to reign in Jerusalem in the lineage of Jesus. In other words, the primary context of the prophecy, now addresses the threat of the Davidic line, not only unbelieving Ahaz or the kingdom of Judah. In fact, Ahaz rejected the sign and made a deal with the king of Assyria.

Most scholars who reject the idea of a virgin conceiving without a male try to tell us that Immanuel/Emmanuel was the son of Isaiah and his prophetess wife, but instead of naming the child Immanuel, he was named Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Hebrew: in making speed to the spoil, he hastens the prey; Isaiah 8:3), vis-à-vis Damascus and Samaria would be soon destroyed by the King of Assyria (Isaiah 8:4). They’ll take counsel together against Judah, but nothing will stand. Why? It is because God is with us (Immanuel; cp. Isaiah 8:9-10), as he has given a sign (Isaiah 7:14):

“Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace; of the increase of his government and peace there is no end, upon the throne of David, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of the Heavenly Armies will accomplish this.” (Isaiah 9:6-7).

The problem is that this was never fulfilled. It certainly wasn’t fulfilled by Isaiah’s son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, whom some claim was also Immanuel. This would have been impossible, because Isaiah was not of the line of David. Some conclude the child was Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, but how does he fulfill Isaiah 9:6-7? For, all of these things are tied together in Isaiah’s prophecy. There is nothing in the historical account of the kings of Judah that shows who this “son” was. There certainly is some fulfillment, because Judah and the line of David continued after Ahaz, and Samaria and Damascus were destroyed, just as the Lord said, by the king of Assyria. However, the greater and more miraculous fulfillment remained unfulfilled for another 700 years!

Finally, let’s be honest. Could the Jews during the first century AD have been able to imagine anything like a virgin birth? What might that have looked like before it actually occurred (if, indeed, it did occur)? The fact is that the Jews looked for a miraculous birth for the Messiah in some form. They may not have been able to understand all the details, but the coming of the Messiah would have to be a miracle in itself. How can I say this?

According to the Jewish Targum Jonathan on Genesis, which is an ancient Aramaic translation of the Hebrew text, we are told,

“And Adam knew Hava, his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord” (Genesis 4:1-2).

Eve thought Cain was the promised Messiah, and she understood him to be the Angel of the Lord, whom the scriptures refer to as YHWH. Whatever we might conclude about Isaiah 7:14, the Targumist was able to conceive of God (YHWH) coming as the Messiah.

Finally, in his history of the Jews, Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, wrote about a very mysterious prophecy made by certain Pharisees about the time of Jesus’ birth that concerned the rise of a powerful king, whose power extends prior to his birth:

These predictions were not concealed from Salome (Herod’s sister), but were told the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that THIS KING WOULD HAVE ALL THINGS IN HIS POWER, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten.[1] [parenthesis and emphasis mine]

Thus, we are able to understand that the Jews not only expected the Messiah to have a miraculous birth, but Josephus even hints at a kind of virgin birth, only he used a eunuch male rather than a female virgin.

______________________________________________________________

[1] See Josephus; Antiquities of the Jews: 17.2.2.