Chapter 18g - THE VIRGIN MISCONCEPTION MYTH

Continued from Chapter 18f

The ’ot

What was the purpose of the ’ot, the corroborating sign, the divine attestation, of the message the prophet delivered? The timing of the event proclaimed in Isaiah 7:14 can be fixed to some degree from the general context, from which it is indicated when the entire sequence of events would culminate (verse 16). The prophet is addressing himself to a contemporary situation and his message is delivered to a king who faces dangerous enemies. The word ’ot, “sign,” is used in the Bible only for events happening in the near future, or in some cases, as the weekly Sabbath, occurring at fixed intervals. This confirms that the time period is within a few years of Isaiah’s announcement. Thus, there is no doubt in the prophet’s message that the ’ot will be fulfilled and that, before this promised child, Immanuel, should be old enough to exercise moral discrimination, “the land whose two kings you have a horror of shall be forsaken” (verse 16). That is, Israel and Syria will have been left desolate. There is no mistaking the immediate and historical purpose of Isaiah’s message.

Did the promised ’ot pertain to the supernatural conception and virgin birth of the child?

To entertain the thought of this possibility is mere conjecture without probability, for the following reasons:

• There was absolutely no notion of parthenogenesis among the Israelites, nor was there anything in biblical tradition to make the notion credible.

• If the prophet had meant to say that a virgin would give birth to a son, he would have had to use the word betulah, which is the word for virgin (it should be noticed that betulah occurs elsewhere in Isaiah: cf. 23:4, 12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5), and even then, the statement, “a betulah will conceive and bear a son,” would have been understood as meaning that a young woman, who was at that time a virgin, would, in the normal way, conceive and bear a son.

• Virginal conception is no sign to anyone but the woman herself.
• To make explicit and unmistakable the prediction that a boy would be born of a virgin, the prophet would have had to describe the event with considerable detail and precision.

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. Consequently, it is without merit to maintain that the promised ’ot had to do with a supposedly extraordinary conception and birth of the child. Isaiah’s message was relevant to the situation facing Judah, at the time the ’ot was promised to Ahaz. The sign was not just the birth of the child, but the naming and early childhood of the boy who was to be born. It involved the whole and sudden sequence of events that would take place before he reached the age of moral discrimination and which are prophesied in 7:14-17, and expanded in 7:18-25.

Could a virgin conception/birth of a child serve as a sign?

In the Scriptures a sign does not have to be supernatural, but it does have to be visible, something that can be seen. For example:

• Genesis 1:14: Where the celestial sources of light serve as signs to determine seasons, days and years.
• Genesis 4:15: Where God gives Cain a sign so that anyone who finds him will not kill him.
• Genesis 9:12-17: Where God places the rainbow in the sky as a sign.
• Genesis 17:11: Male circumcision is a sign of God’s covenant.
• Exodus 3:12: When the Israelites come to worship God at Mount Sinai, this will be the sign to Moses that he has been sent by God.
• Exodus 12:13: The blood on the doorpost is a sign.
• Exodus 13:16: The tefillin (phylacteries) on our arm and head are a sign that God redeemed us from Egypt.
• Exodus 31:13: The observance of the Sabbath is a sign that God sanctifies Israel (see also Ezekiel 20:12, 20).
• Joshua 4:5-24: The stones set up in the Jordan River are a sign that God dried up the water so that the children of Israel could cross.
• Judges 6:17-22: The angel incinerates Gideon’s meal as a sign.
• 1 Samuel 2:34: The death of his sons on the same day is a sign to Eli.
• 2 Kings 19:29: A sign is what will be eaten from the harvest.
• 2 Kings 20:8-11: The shade of the sundial moves backwards ten degrees as a sign to Hezekiah.
• Isaiah 8:18: Children are signs for Israel.
• Isaiah 19:20: The altar and pillar in Egypt are a sign.
• Isaiah 20:3: Isaiah going unclothed and barefoot is a sign for Egypt and Cush.
• Isaiah 37:30: The sign based upon what will be eaten from the harvest.
• Isaiah 38:7-8. The shade of the sundial moves backwards as a sign to Hezekiah.
• Jeremiah 44:29: The deliverance of the king of Egypt into the hands of his enemies will be a sign for Israel.
• Ezekiel 4:3: Placing an iron pan as a wall between himself (Ezekiel) and Jerusalem is a sign to the house of Israel.
• Psalms 86:17: David asks for a sign “so that my enemies may see it and be ashamed.”

Who could see if Mary was a pregnant virgin?

According to Matthew, Joseph, Mary’s betroth, initially thought that she had been unfaithful (Matthew 1:19-20). Since a sign had to be visual, something that could be seen, a virgin conception/birth would hardly qualify. Certainly, a sign concerning an impending invasion that is meant to reassure that God is with His people and that all will be fine is not to be found in a conception/birth supposedly taking place 750 years later. In both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint translation the sign was not the manner in which the child would be conceived, but in the precise timing whereby the child, Immanuel, would serve as a sign of God’s presence and protection. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek of Isaiah 7:14 referred to a virgin conception. Furthermore, there was nothing in the biblical understanding of Isaiah 7:14 on which to base the belief in the virgin conception of Jesus. It is a claim stated in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke,9 but not at all in Isaiah 7:14. At most, Isaiah 7:14 was used to give biblical expression to an already existing Christian belief in the virgin conception of Jesus. 9 Isaiah 7:14 does not appear to have entered the formulation of Luke’s version of the virgin conception. © Gerald Sigal Continued