Continued from Chapter 18h
The untenable Christian claim
The virgin conception story cannot gain any substantiation through reference to the Jewish Scriptures or by appealing to their Greek translation. Isaiah 7:14 appears to be Matthew’s biblical justification for claiming a virgin conception, but it was not the source of the belief (even the author of Luke presents the virgin conception without reference to this verse).
The belief originated in the pagan notion that divine conception occurs by the union of virgins and gods and that this was a common way in which heroes and famous persons were conceived. In reality, both parents’ contributions are necessary for human DNA. The human mother provides the X and a human father provides the Y chromosome to create a fully human being. Apparently, the virgin conception notion developed independently of Paul’s teachings. He wrote: “But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His son, born of a woman, born under the Law” (Galatians 4:4). If Paul thought Jesus was born of a supernatural virgin conception we should expect him to be more explicit and write “virgin” rather than “woman.” Paul thought Jesus was an angelic being, but not God or part of God.
There is no reason to accept the Christian contention that Septuagint Isaiah 7:14 referred to a virgin conception and was so interpreted by the Jewish people during the pre-Christian era. The idea of a virgin conception is simply not biblical. In the attempt to express the belief that Jesus was the son of God the idea was promulgated that Jesus did not become God’s son during his lifetime or at his alleged resurrection, but was God’s son from the first moment of his existence in Mary’s womb. Impregnation of virgins by a god was a well-known pagan religious symbol for divine origin. This subtle blending of pagan legend and the interpretive Greek rendering of verse 14 with the Jewish scriptural motif of certain individuals being referred to as sons of God transformed Jesus into the virgin conceived Son of God of Christianity. Isaiah is speaking of a specific young woman whose identity is known to him and King Ahaz, for the word ‘almah has a definite article prefixed to it—“the young women,” ha-‘almah.
Did the promised ’ot pertain to the supernatural conception and virgin birth of the promised child?
Even if the more technical word betulah, had been employed, the term might have described the young woman merely at the moment when the prophet spoke. While many Christians maintain that Matthew’s description of a virgin conception for Jesus is a literal or direct fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 others realize how untenable this notion is. They maintain that in time, the prophecy was fulfilled exactly as God said it would. The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, therefore, was literally fulfilled during the days of Isaiah. According to this Christian explanation, Isaiah’s ‘almah was a virgin up until the night of her wedding; Mary, in a much greater manner, was a virgo intacta until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25). Those who maintain this notion explain that Matthew knew that Isaiah 7:14 did not literally predict the virgin conception of Jesus, but he understood it to be a historical parallel and type. The typology argument is bogus. It is a vain imaginative attempt to explain a fallacious Christian doctrine that has no biblical support. They cannot honestly have it both ways. If ‘almah means “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14, then the Christian’s must believe that there were two virgin births in history, one in the days of Isaiah and the second one being that of Jesus. Christians must rely on the Septuagint’s rendering of ‘almah as parthenos, virgin” to justify their understanding of the verse. As we have seen, even the Septuagint does not understand the verse as referring to a virgin conception. In addition, if we transpose Isaiah 7:10-16 to be contemporaneously with Jesus, how did his alleged manner of conception and early life fulfill the promises made in the complete sign given by Isaiah? For example, when did his mother give Jesus the name Immanuel? The virgin conception motif was a non-biblical teaching. Typology remains another vain attempt to explain Matthew’s misuse of Isaiah 7:14.
At no time was Isaiah 7:14 ever considered by Jewish sources to mean the Messiah would be born of a virgin. In the second century debate between Justin Martyr and Trypho over the meaning and interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, Trypho, the Jew, takes the position that ‘almah means a young woman and that the promised child was Hezekiah. In the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke contain virgin conception stories and genealogies. An ‘almah conceiving and giving birth is not unusual. If, on the 5 hand, virgin conception were the sign given by Isaiah, then the child’s m5 would be the one person who could be positive that it really was a virgin conception.
Continued