Isaiah 7:14—The Virgin Birth

“And behold the^[1] virgin shall conceive and bear a son and name him Emmanu-El”

Claim: The verse is a future prophecy about Jesus who was born to the Virgin Mary. The name Immanuel, the Hebrew rendering for “God is with us,” denotes the divinity of Jesus.

Response: In most Christian Bibles it reads “virgin” in place of “young woman.” The lack of the word “virgin” in the verse knocks the missionary argument off its feet. When employing this argument against them, they then insist that virgin is included in young woman,^[i] but at this point, it’s already belief instead of proof.^[2]

Be as it may, we are to look at the context we would discover that the purpose of the sign was for the Prophet to demonstrate to king Ahaz that he will win the war of his days. I wonder how a sign more than 500 years later will convince Ahaz, who would have died already 15 times, that he will win the war that was transpiring in his times?!^[3]

Here’s the context of our chapter:

“In the reign of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel marched upon Jerusalem to attack it; but they were not able to attack it. Now, when it was reported to the House of David that Aram had allied itself with Ephraim, their hearts and the hearts of their people trembled as trees of the forest sway before a wind. But the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out with your son Shear-jashub to meet Ahaz at the end of the conduit of the Upper Pool, by the road of the Fuller’s Field. And say to him: Be firm and be calm. Do not be afraid and do not lose heart on account of those two smoking stubs of firebrands, on account of the raging of Rezin and his Arameans and the son of Remaliah. Because the Arameans—with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah—have plotted against you, saying, ‘We will march against Judah and invade and conquer it, and we will set up as king in it the son of Tabeel,’ thus said my Lord God: It shall not succeed, it shall not come to pass. For the chief city of Aram is Damascus, And the chief of Damascus is Rezin; The chief city of Ephraim is Samaria, And the chief of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. And in another sixty-five years, Ephraim shall be shattered as a people. If you will not believe, for you cannot be trusted…” The Lord spoke further to Ahaz: “Ask for a sign from the Lord your God, anywhere down to Sheol or up to the sky.” But Ahaz replied, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.” “Listen, House of David,” [Isaiah] retorted, “is it not enough for you to treat men as helpless that you also treat my God as helpless? Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.” (The last verse, the one at question in our discussion, was just translated into English based on the interpretation of the Rabbinic commentator Malbim).

Another obvious issue with the missionaries’ understanding of the verse is the very substance of the “sign” that the Prophet is attempting to show. Imagine one’s daughter, for example, comes home one-day pregnant while claiming that the “Spirit-Ghost” conceived her. What would her parents think? A miracle?! A sign?!—It would actually be a great “sign,” a sign that she played around with boys. That would definitely not work as a convincing tool for (skeptical) King Ahaz.

This name Immanuel doesn’t strike us as novel, for we find similar names all throughout the Bible. It’s just like many names found in the Torah which possess God’s name within them; for example, Israel, Ishmael, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. See II Samuel 9:4 for the name Ami-el (literally translated as “my nation is the Lord”).

It is rather clear that the explanation of the verse isn’t the way the Christians attempt to explain it. See the Jewish commentators for a proper understanding.^[4] [Whether or not the Jewish commentators’ interpretations seem fitting or not, is of no relevance to our discussion. Even if believed to be a weak interpretation it wouldn’t in effect give credibility to the Christian interpretation.]

Some Christian scholars realizing this flawed argument—brought in the New Testament—invented a new theory. They theorize that this prophecy^[5] has a past and future relevance (future from Isaiah’s perspective). It thus occurred in the days of King Ahaz and happened once more in the days of Jesus. A new invention indeed, not found by any other prophecies. They can believe whatever they want outside of the literal meaning, as long as it’s not employed in a logical dialogue.

Of course, this is all under the assumption and premises that Jesus actually existed as a historical figure and actually was born to a virgin, something which the very context of the myth gives doubts to its reality (for, if a virgin gives birth then that means she’s obviously not a virgin!). There’s indeed speculation about the historical existence of Jesus, and most certainly whether he existed at the time the New Testament records him to have lived, as we have discussed in “The Resurrection Myth.”

[1] Some Christians mistranslate the verse to “a young woman shall conceive” attempting to make it sound like a future random woman. This contrasts with the real Hebrew translation of “the young woman shall conceive” referring to a specific known woman at the time to the Prophet and King.

[2] For a discussion about the Septuagint many times brought by Christians when discussing this verse, see the response to the Psalm 22 claim coming up.

[3] Any explanations attempting to explain the war in a spiritual sense also fall into the “belief” category—not the “proof” one, for I too can explain the entire Torah in a spiritual sense to be referring to myself as the Messiah.

[4] Such as Metzudat-Dovid, Abarbanel, and Malbim.

[5] As well as some other prophecy proof-texts allegedly connected to Jesus.

[i] Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus section3 by Dr. Michael L. Brown, page 21.