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: 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:

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

Join For Free

Jews for Judaism offers individual and group sessions with people who are searching for spiritual meaning, dating an individual who is of another faith or thinking about converting to another faith.

Join