2. The word ‘VIRGIN’, and the whole story about it
The author of the Gospel according
to Matthew has offered this prophecy of Isaiah as a proof of the miraculous
birth of Jesus Christ from VIRGIN MARY in the following words:
22. Now all this took place that what was spoken by the
Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying,
23. "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL
BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means,
"GOD IS WITH US."1
The whole of the edifice of the argument
here, stands on the word ‘VIRGIN’. And if it be established that the word
‘VIRGIN’ of the quotation from Isaiah recorded in the Gospel according
to Matthew by its author is a mistake [it is a misinterpretation of the
word "ALMAH" of the Hebrew Old Testament, which does not mean "VIRGIN";
and simply means "A WOMAN OF MARRIAGE-ABLE AGE"]; the whole edifice of
the argument will be dashed to ground. Some of the authorities are given
below to elaborate the theme:
Today’s English Version gives the words
"a young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates
the word as "A virgin". It explains "a young woman" in the footnote "k"
as follows:
YOUNG WOMAN: The Hebrew word here translated "young woman"
is not the specific term for "virgin," but refers to any young woman of
marriageable age. The use of "virgin" in Mt 1.23 reflects a Greek translation
of the Old Testament [Septuagint], made some 500 years after Isaiah.2
The New English Bible also gives the words
"A young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates
the word as "The virgin".3
The Reader’s Bible, in the same way, records
the words "a young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it
translates the word as "a virgin".4
Revised Standard Version (Catholic edition),
as well, writes the words "a young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in
Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "a virgin".5
The New Rev. Stand. Versn. (Cath.Ed. for India),
has also followed suit and has given the words "the young woman" in Isaiah
VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "the virgin".6
The New Oxford Annotated Bible has also
done the same. It has recorded the words "the young woman" in Isaiah VII:14,
and the words "the virgin" in Matthew I:23.7
It has also afforded a footnote as follows: ‘Young woman, Hebrew "‘almah,"
feminine of "‘elem," young man (1Sam 17.56; 20.22); the word appears in
Gen 24.43; Ex 2.8; Ps 68.25, and elsewhere, where it is translated "young
woman," "girl," "maiden.’8
The New Jerusalem Bible is of the same
view. It has given the words "the young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas
in Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "the virgin".9
It would be appreciated that in all the
above versions, the original Hebrew word of the Bible "ALMAH" has
faithfully been translated in the Book of Isaiah as "a/the young woman".
But when taken to the Gospel according to Matthew in the New Testament,
each of the above translators has mistranslated and misquoted it as "VIRGIN".
It is not just and faithful rendering of the original Hebrew word "ALMAH"
of the O.T. of the Bible. It is not without purpose. It is a clear evidence
of the malafide approach on the part of the translators. Some of the examples
as to how some of the expositors of the Bible have tried to twist and confuse
this very simple matter, will be helpful to understand it:
Explaining the sign of Isaiah in the
foot-notes, the writer of Christian Community Bible, has
very cleverly tried to confound the reader rather than to expound the matter.
Here is his exposition:
Why is the Virgin mentioned? The term used in Isaiah
does not actually mean the Virgin but rather the young girl and
when it was used as such, it simply referred to the young queen. [This
statement should carefully be understood and kept in mind before proceeding
further to experience and observe the wonderful art of the commentator
to prove a thing "an apple", whom he had introduced as "a turnip"
a short while ago. (His paragraph is continuing without any break or any
word being omitted.)] Here Isaiah is referring to the future mother of
the King-Messiah, and we know that she was the Virgin Mary. But, even before
this amazing birth of the Virgin’s son, many believing Jews suspected that
the Messiah’s origin would be extraordinary. If God was constantly reproaching
believers for not loving him exclusively, how could the Messiah’s mother
be a woman of many loves?
Besides, according to an expression in their language,
they used to say the Virgin of Israel or the Virgin daughter
of Zion to refer to the people and to the holy city (Is 37:22). And
so to them, the verse: the Virgin will give birth sounded like:
the believing community will give birth to the Messiah. Mary had to be
a virgin, and she also represented all the believers who had hoped for
the Saviour with a virgin heart (see Lk 1:31). It is worth noting that,
even before Jesus, the Greek translation of the Bible had already substituted
the virgin for the original term young girl.
It may surprise us to have Isaiah announce this liberation
of God’s people as an answer from God to Ahaz, or, as something that
would happen within a few years [stress added. It may be noted that
the simple interpretation of the italicized clause can be nothing else
than: "The sign is to come into force within a few years of its utterance
by Isaiah. It is not meant to be fulfilled more than c. 734 years later,
through the birth of Jesus Christ."]. But Isaiah was speaking as a prophet
who combines in one vision events of the same nature, although occurring
at different times [Here again, it is to be noted that the commentator
is arbitrarily attributing the theme of ‘double application’ to
the plain and unequivocal prophecy of Isaiah without a slightest hint to
that effect by the prophet]. In some sense, those gloomy years were announcing
future crisis, misfortunes and sins which formed one whole with the tragedies
that would precede the coming of the kingdom of God.
Isaiah gives sign to King Ahaz, to his heirs, David’s
descendants (1:13), and to all who live in a world devastated by sin,
and this sign points to Christ. Just as in the lost earthly Paradise, we
have the image of a woman, or of the son of a woman who will crush
the serpent’s head, here we have another image, that of the virgin with
her son, God-with-us. Immanuel suffers for his brothers’ and sisters’ sins,
and that is why he can reconcile us with God. [If it be the interpretation,
then what a distortion would be!]
Isaiah’s contemporaries, obviously, did not understand
all of this. It is only with time that the many meanings of this ‘sign’
will be understood. The word sign as used by Isaiah, can also be translated
as a marvelous event.10
The New American Bible has
afforded in its foot-note to the relevant verse a somewhat similar interpretation
but in a moderate manner:
The sign proposed by Isaiah was concerned with the preservation
of Judah in the midst of distress (cf 7, 15.17), but more especially with
the fulfillment of God’s earlier promise to David (2 Sm 7, 12-16) in the
coming of Immanuel (meaning, "With us is God") as the ideal king (cf 9,
5-6; 11,1-5). The Church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the
transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother.
The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words;
and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment
in the conception and birth of the future king Hezekiah, whose mother,
at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew
almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which
alone could fulfill the divinely given terms of Immanuel’s mission, and
in which the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God was to fulfill also
the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine
wisdom.11
The writer of The Living Bible (‘The
Way’), in his foot-note to the verse, provides the strange excuse
for using the word ‘VIRGIN’ in his translation of the verse:
The controversial Hebrew word used here sometimes means
"virgin" and sometimes "young woman." Its immediate use here refers to
Isaiah’s young wife and her newborn son (Isaiah 8:1-4). This, of course,
was not a virgin birth. God’s sign was that before this child was old enough
to talk (verse 4) the two invading kings would be destroyed. However, the
Gospel of Matthew (1:23) tells us that there was a further fulfillment
of this prophecy, in that a virgin (Mary) conceived and bore a son, Immanuel,
the Christ. We have therefore properly used this higher meaning, "virgin,"
in verse 14, as otherwise the Matthew account loses its significance [stress
added without any further comment, as it speaks of its intent of itself].12
The writer of the foot-notes to the Contemporary
English Version has adopted a more wise and modest view-point:
In this context the difficult Hebrew word did not imply
a virgin birth. However, in the Greek translation made about 200 B.C. and
used by the early Christians, the word parthenos had a double meaning.
While the translator took it to mean "young woman," Matthew understood
it to mean "virgin" and quoted the passage (Matthew 1.23) because it was
the appropriate description of Mary, the mother of Jesus [stress added.
What a prejudiced approach to forge the meanings of the ‘sign’ in favour
of one’s whims!].13
The writer of the foot-notes of the New
Testament; Standard Edition clarifies the theme a little more:
The Hebrew word almah means a young woman of marriageable
age (masculine, elem). The reason for the choice of parthenos,
‘virgin’ in the LXX is not known (cf. Acts 17:2). Later Greek versions
read neanis ‘a young person’. Is.7:14 does not refer to a birth
by a virgin. The LXX even uses parthenos for one who is not a virgin
(cf. Gen 34:3). Traditionally virginity before the marriage was highly
valued. Education and counselling were given systematically to young to
ensure that they appreciated the need to avoid pre-marital sex. Those who
broke their virginity before marriage were heavily penalized by their age
sets, and lost their reputation and chances of finding a marriage partner
of their choice. In some tribes both the girl and the boy were killed.
Conception prior to marriage without a male partner (Mat 1:20; Lk 1:31)
renders Mary different in a unique way. Matthew and Luke emphasize Mary’s
partial independence from ancestral control and her direct relationship
to God. The insertion of references to four women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth,
Bathsheba) along with Mary in the Genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:3-6) could also
serve the same purpose.14
A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels
has tried to understand the theme in a more realistic and reasonable
way:
It may now be taken for granted that the word ALMAH
translated ‘virgin’ in the EV should be more correctly rendered ‘young
woman.’ The proper Hebrew term for ‘virgin’ is BETULAH, though even
this is used in JI 18 for ‘young widow.’ All that can with certainty be
said of the word used by Isaiah is that it indicates a young woman of marriageable
age, but says nothing whether she is married or not. Accordingly the terms
of the prophecy do not warrant us in interpreting the sign as the prodigy
of a virgin conception. (...).
(...). It is clear, in the first place, that the prophet
is referring to something in the near future, otherwise the sign could
have conveyed no message to the king, all the more that his difficulty
was urgent. (....).
The question accordingly arises: In what form precisely
did the sign consist? The stress may either lie on the ALMAH, or
the son, or the name given to him, or a combination of these. The traditional
interpretation has, of course, thrown the stress on the first of these;
for it the sign lay in the virgin-conception. But when the true sense of
ALMAH is understood, this interpretation becomes impossible [stress
added]. (....) the name Immanuel expresses the mother’s conviction that
God is with His people. The sign is no prodigy in this case. For against
the king’s unbelief and his obstinate refusal to accept a sign there arises
the mother’s impressive faith, which confronted danger without dismay,
and uttered her conviction of God’s presence with His people in the name
she gave her son. The personality of the mother is equally with that of
the son of no importance for the sign; that consists in the mother’s faith
and the son’s name. Accordingly it is better to translate ‘a young woman’
instead of ‘the young woman.’ Isaiah, however, does not mean precisely
that any young woman, who is shortly about to conceive and give birth to
a son, may call his name Immanuel. While he has no definite woman in his
mind, he predicts that some young woman will, in the future, conceive and
bear a son, to whom she will give the name Immanuel. His language is not
that of hypothesis but of prediction.
The way is now clear to discuss St. Matthew’s use of
the passage. (...). It is quite plain that this interpretation was in
general very little controlled by the original sense of the OT passage
quoted. It was of a largely polemical character, since it was necessary,
against the cavilling15
of the Jews, to prove the Messiahship of Jesus from the OT. Accordingly
the Hebrew scriptures were ransacked16
to find parallels with the life of Christ [stress added]; and it is
not unlikely that, at a quite early period, collections of these passages
were drawn up for controversial use [stress added].17
A New Commentary on Holy Scripture
explains the word virgin as follows:
The Hebrew word (‘almah) means ‘a young woman,’
and if emphasis on virginity had been required[,] another word (bethulah)
would have been used. LXX renders parthenos, which does mean virgin,
but there is no evidence that any significance was attached to it before
our Lord’s birth. This is an important point, since hostile critics hold
that the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth was suggested by this amongst
other passages. The exact contrary seems to be true: our Lord was born
of a Virgin, and in consequence the passage applied to Him. The Jewish
commentators were undecided as to whether the prophet is referring to his
own wife or the wife of Ahaz.18
Peake’s Commentary adopts
"a young woman" for granted and does not even mention the word "virgin":
Indicating a young woman [stress added], possibly
among the company present, certainly known to them, he declares that she
is pregnant and will soon bear a son who will be named Immanuel (‘God is
with us’). Probably the young woman [stress added] was one
of the wives of the king. If so, Isaiah’s words are an announcement of
the birth of a royal son (...).19
Dummelow’s Commentary records
also the same views and takes the translation "virgin" as incorrect.
It notes:
It may candidly be admitted that the miraculous conception
of Jesus has not the same evidence for it as the other miracles, (....).In
the Heb. it is `almah, i.e. ‘a young woman,’ not necessarily a virgin.
The LXX, however, renders it parthenos, i.e. ‘virgin,’ and hence many
have incorrectly supposed that Isaiah prophesied the Virgin Birth
[stress added].20
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Commentary has afforded a useful discussion on the theme:
Hebrew lexicographers are agreed that ‘almah is from
the root ‘alam, "to be [sexually] mature," and that the word ‘almah
denotes a "young woman," implying ability to bear children. Both ‘almah
and ‘elem, the masculine form of the word, clearly denote physical
maturity, but there is no absolute evidence as to whether they imply virginity
or indicate marital status. It may be noted, however, that in S. of Sol.
6:8,9 "virgins," ‘alamoth (plural of ‘almah), are classed
with "queens" and "concubines" in contrast with an "undefiled" young woman.
According to the Hebrew the ‘almah of Isa. 7:14 may already have
conceived (see below, "Shall conceive), and if she were yet a virgin when
Isaiah spoke we would then be confronted with another miraculous birth
similar to that of Jesus, which would create a profound theological problem.
The Hebrew term specifically descriptive of virginity
is bethulah, which means strictly "virgin" and nothing else in the
50 instances where it appears in the OT. In Bible usage a bethulah was,
by definition, a marriageable woman, whether young or old, though probably
young; who had remained separate from men. Not once is the word ‘almah
used with reference to virginity as bethulah and its derivative
forms are used. Bethulah has no cognate masculine equivalent, but
is often coupled with bachur, "choice young man," or "excellent
young man." Bachur and bethulah depict the highest Hebrew
ideals of young manhood and young woman-hood, as ‘elem and ‘almah denote
physical maturity. Without a single exception, where moral integrity and
virginity are clearly referred to, bachur and bethulah are
used; ‘elem and ‘almah are never so used.
(...).Isaiah uses bethulah altogether five times (chs.
23:4, 12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5), and had he intended the "young woman" of
ch. 7:14 to be understood as a "virgin" in the strict sense of the word,
he might logically be expected to use bethulah here as well.21
Similarly, The Broadman Bible Commentary
has also discussed the theme in detail:
The Hebrew word has been translated "a virgin" in the
KJV and a young woman in the RSV. This noun is derived from a verbal
root meaning "to be ripe." Therefore it denotes a young girl who has passed
the age of puberty and is presumably capable of bearing children.
The word ‘almah neither affirms nor denies virginity
on the part of the one to whom it refers. The technically Hebrew term for
virgin is bethula, a term which is used elsewhere in Isaiah, but
not in this passage (...).
The suggestion, therefore, that the young woman referred
to by Isaiah was a virgin arose not from the Hebrew Bible, but from the
Greek [translation of the Bible: Septuagint or LXX]. In all but two places
the Septuagint translators rendered ‘almah by the noncommittal neanis
(young woman). The two exceptions were Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14, where
parthenos (virgin) was used. The translator’s decision to call Rebecca
a parthenos was doubtless due to the very explicit statement regarding
her virginity in Genesis 24:16. Why the mother in Isaiah 7:14 also was
described as a parthenos has never been satisfactorily explained. It was,
of course, the Greek version of this verse which was quoted by Matthew.22
Similar explanation has been given by
most of the authorities regarding the word "VIRGIN". The names of some
of them are given below:
a) The new Jerome Biblical Commentary: Ha’alma
is not the technical term for a virgin (betula). This is best
understood as a wife of Ahaz; the child promised will guarantee the dynasty’s
future (...).23
b) The New Bible Commentary Revised: (...). But
the nearest English equivalent is ‘girl’: (...).24
c) The New Bible Commentary: Let it be granted
that the word translated ‘virgin’ (Heb. almah) need not have that
exclusive connotation, and that the prophet is thinking in the first instance
of an immediate occurrence.25
d) O.T. Translation Problems (by A.R. Hulst): (...),
since a young woman is called ‘alma(h), but not every ‘alma(h) is necessarily
a ‘virgin’ in the sense of the other Hebrew noun betula(h), in which virginity
is stressed. For a recent thorough treatment of this text cf. The Bible
Translator, Vol.9, no.3, July, 1958.26
e) Encycl. of Biblical Prophecy (by J. Barton Payne)
although admits the "young woman" version as genuine, yet it has tried
to create confusion through ambiguity: ‘Terry speaks of this passage as
"probably the most difficult of all the Messianic prophecies,"27
The standard interpretation proposed by liberal criticism is that Isaiah
here refers to the son of a contemporary young woman, not a virgin [stress
added], whose child will be named Immanuel, meaning that God is providentially
with us, which would thus serve as a sign of the defeat of Judah’s
northern enemies (7:8).28
f) As far as the OT is concerned, the Jews more genuinely
deserve to interpret and translate it. It would be relevant here to quote
the meaning and view point of one of the Jewish authorities: The Pentateuch
and Haftorahs (by Dr. J.H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire): ‘Similarly,
in connection with Isaiah VII, 14, ‘A virgin shall conceive,’ Christian
scholars today admit that ‘virgin’ is a mistranslation for the Heb. word
almah, in that verse. A ‘maid’ or unmarried woman is expressed in
Hebrew by bethulah. The word almah in Isaiah VII,14 means
no more than a young woman of age to be a mother, whether she be married
or not.29
It is remarkably strange that almost all
the translators of the New Testament of the Bible, while translating this
Prophecy of Isaiah quoted in Matthew I:23, use the word "VIRGIN", although
they translate it as " ‘a’ or ‘the’ YOUNG WOMAN" at its original place
(ISA.VII:14). But when Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was legitimately the
wife of Joseph according to the Gospel of Matthew and Luke (the Gospels
of Mark and John give no account of the birth of Jesus); and as such it
cannot indisputably be claimed that she was virgin. Matthew records the
event in the following words:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.
When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together
she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit, and her husband Joseph
[stress added. The word ‘husband’ for Joseph indicates that
his wife, Mary, was not a maiden girl at that time; but was a married
woman, and naturally, nobody would like to concede to the claim of
virginity about a married woman], being a just man and unwilling
to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered
this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in dream, saying, "Joseph,
son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife [stress added.
The word "wife" is again very significant here. The original Greek
word used in the NT is "gune" : meaning "a wife", which has
been derived from the Greek word "ginomai": meaning "be married".30
Obviously, nobody would like to concede to the idea of "VIRGINITY" towards
a married woman who is some-one’s wife and is going to give birth to a
child.], for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she
will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his
people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had
spoken by the prophet: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God is with us). When
Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him;
he took his wife [stress added; the use of the word wife is again to be
noted], but knew her not until she had born a son; and he called his name
Jesus.31
Luke reports the event in the following
words:
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus
that all the world should be enrolled. (...). And all went to be enrolled,
each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city
of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem,
because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary,
his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time
came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first -born son
and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because
there was no place for them in the inn.32
Obviously, it could not have been revealed
through a dream to everyone that "which is conceived in her is of the
Holy Spirit;". Everybody could naturally think that Jesus was a routine
son of Joseph and there was no question of his miraculous or "VIRGIN BIRTH".
As for the Evangelist’s statement, neither he himself is the eye-witness
of the event; nor he records it to be reported to him by some eye-witness.
It can thus be asserted that the statement of the Bible regarding the Virgin
Birth of Jesus is dubious and ambiguous and it proves nothing as to the
Virgin Birth in unequivocal terms. One can find only in the Qur’a#n
the pronouncement of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in unequivocal terms.
But a person confessing the New Testament of the Bible cannot confidently
claim a ‘Virgin Birth’ about the son of Mary, the legitimate wife of Joseph,
(and not the son of a Virgin Mary). It is this dubious and ambiguous account
of both of the evangelists which provides the Jews the ground to blaspheme
Jesus as an illegitimate child. Now, that the Virgin Birth of Jesus has
itself become doubtful according the dubious statements of the NT, there
remains no genuine ground for attaching the prophecy of Isaiah to it.
It may be noted here that an intentional
attempt has been made to quote a fairly considerable number of authorities
of different times, different countries, different denominations and different
schools of thought to show that there is a sort of sizeable consensus on
the point; and so that one may not reject or discord the findings with
the plea that they do not bear a representative status. Now, on the perusal
of the above discussions, it can be safely concluded that:
a) The prophecy was uttered by the Prophet Isaiah c.734
years "Before Christ" to deter king Ahaz of the Northern Kingdom
of Judah from relinquishing the liberty of the land and people of Judah
to the pagan king of Assyria, Tiglath-pileser III, to seek his support
against the impending attack of the coalition of Aram (Syria) and Israel.
Ahaz doesn’t seem to accept this advice.
b) God Himself pronounced a ‘sign’ to Ahaz through the
prophet Isaiah that within the period a new-born baby ‘is old enough
to know how to choose between right and wrong’ , [which has been defined
by the commentators of the Bible as "twelve years"], ‘the countries
of the two kings you fear will be destroyed.’33
The ‘sign’ physically materialised and both the countries were devastated
by the Assyrians [Syria in 732 BC and Israel in 722 BC] in exactly the
predicted and stipulated period. The prophecy having once been fulfilled
in-toto and in letter and spirit, there remains nothing
concerning it to happen in future.
c) Isaiah did not make even a slightest hint to the effect
that the ‘sign’ had or could have afforded a ‘double application’
and could accommodate another event to take place in as remote a future
as 734 years. Moreover, there is nothing in the context either, which can
allow the prediction to be extended and be made applicable to some other
event in future.
d) The whole of the argument for the prophecy to be applied
in favour of Jesus Christ rests on the word "VIRGIN". But it is unfortunate
on the part of Evangelists using the prophecy in favour of the so called
"Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ" that Isaiah, while pronouncing the
prophecy, did not use a word which could safely be applied to mean "a Virgin"
[such as "Bethulah", which has many a time been used to mean "a
Virgin" in the OT]. He rather used the Hebrew word "ALMAH", which
simply means: "a young woman of marriageable age", and which has
nothing to do with the question whether she be a "Virgin" or otherwise.
e) The Evangelists using this prophecy of Isaiah in favour
of the "Virgin Birth of Jesus" were allured to it in view of the Greek
translation of the Hebrew OT called "Septuagint", which was in common use
in those days. They did not bother to trace and consult the original Hebrew
Old Testament of the Bible to ensure the validity and accuracy of their
standpoint.
f) It is only the translators of "Septuagint", who are
responsible for it. They were the first and the only translators who committed
this blunder of far-reaching effects. As already explained a number of
times Isaiah used the Hebrew word "Almah" in his prophecy, which
simply means "a young woman of marriageable age", and where the
OT requires to convey the sense of and stress on "Virginity", it
uses the word "Bethulah", which is the right Hebrew word for a "Virgin".
g) Had Isaiah intended and used the word Almah of
the prophecy to signify a Virgin, and had it really meant so, there
should either have been a mention of a "Virgin Birth" in his times,
or Ahaz had genuinely recorded an objection against the prophecy to belie
the statement of Isaiah, which the Bible failed to report. But nobody would
like to concede to any of such variables.
h) Had the prophecy meant for a so called "double
application", its results and implications should have been similar
ones. If the birth of Jesus Christ be presented as a "Virgin Birth" in
the light of the prophecy of Isaiah, the birth of "Immanuel" of the days
of Isaiah should also be accepted as a "Virgin Birth".
i) If the birth of "Immanuel" of the days of Isaiah be
considered and accepted as a "Virgin Birth", it will signify [and will
have to be acknowledged as] a "Miraculous Birth". But no Christian Scholar
would like to accept this proposition, because it might pose serious problems
for the Church, as already mentioned by some of the Christian authorities.
j) If Immanuel of the days of Isaiah be assigned a "Miraculous
Virgin Birth", the "Miraculous Virgin Birth" of Jesus Christ will lose
all its significance and singularity; and the edifice of the divinity of
Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Trinity will be dashed to ground. In such
a case, the evidence which is so forcefully and repeatedly offered as a
proof in favour of the "DIVINITY" of Jesus Christ, shall categorically
prove the human nature and Prophethood/Apostleship of "LORD JESUS". Would
some Christian authority dare to profess and pronounce the prophecy of
Isaiah in favour of the "Virgin Birth" of his "Lord Jesus"; with all its
implications worked out above.
k) The Evangelists have based their theme on the wrong
translation of the Hebrew OT by the translators of the "Septuagint". Had
those translators not committed this confounding mistake, and thus had
it not been there in the Greek translation of the OT of the Bible, i.e.
the "Septuagint", there would have been no basis for the evangelists of
quoting it in their Gospels, and there would have been no question of all
this useless discussion; which is obviously based on a faulty proposition.
l) It is an ample proof of the carelessness, irresponsibility,
incompetence and indiscretion of the Evangelists, which affords a sufficient
ground for rendering their Gospels as quite unreliable.
m) It is also to be noted that Jesus Christ (sws) never
referred to the prophecy of Isaiah or claimed for himself a "Virgin Birth"
in any of his utterances throughout the Gospels.
As can be appreciated, the following points
have clearly been established through the deliberations accomplished so
far:
a) On historical basis, the prophecy in question cannot
be applied to the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, by any stretch of meaning
or any trick of interpretation.
b) On lexicographical grounds, the application of the
prophecy to the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ (sws) is utterly baseless,
because the original Hebrew prophecy is totally void of any word having
the absolute meaning of a Virgin.
3. The word ‘IMMANUEL’ and its significance.
Having taken up two points of the
dissertation, the third and the last heading remains to be studied. Isaiah
pronounces to king Ahaz of Judah, as a sign from God, that a young woman
is to conceive and is going to give birth to a son (or the young woman
is already pregnant and is to bear a son), whose name shall be Immanuel.
Before this ‘forthcoming’ child reaches the age of accountability (that
is, within almost a decade), both of his enemies (King Rezin of Syria and
king Pekah of Israel) shall be destroyed. It shows that it was through
the design of God that the boy was given the name "Immanuel". The name
of the boy is a key word and an integral part of the prophecy. Where there
is no Immanuel, this prophecy cannot be applied there ; and if it be tried
to attach this prophecy to some new-born baby who is not given the name
"Immanuel", it is doomed to be null and void and would be signifying nothing.
The word Immanuel is the pivot of Isaiah’s oracle. It is very conspicuous
and meaningful. It means "God is (or shall remain) with us". [ ‘Immanuel’
is a compound word of the Hebrew language, which, like its sister language,
Arabic, belongs to the family of the Semetic languages. Immanuel is composed
of three words: (a) Imma {Arabic - Ma`a} = with; (b) nu#
{Arabic - na#} = us and e#l
{Arabic - Ila#h, Alla#h}
= God; which joined together, become: "God is with us" {Arabic - ‘Allahu
ma‘ana#’}]. It implies God’s presence
with and support for His people and tells Ahaz not to be afraid of his
enemies, because they are heading towards their early extermination and
will not be able to harm him any way.
The sign was materialized within almost
two years of its pronouncement in 734 BC: Syria was captured and her ruler,
Rezin, was killed by the Assyrian king in 732 BC; and Pekah, king of Israel,
was murdered by Hoshea in the same year. The prophecy was to be completely
fulfilled before a new-born baby reaches the age of accountability, i.e.
within twelve years of its pronouncement; and it is a historical fact that
it was materialized in-toto accordingly. The kingdom of Israel, which was
actually confined to her capital, Samaria only, was put to rout and its
people were transported beyond Assyria in 722 BC, i.e. within twelve years
of its announcement; by which time Immanuel must have been born and would
not have reached the age of accountability (12 years) still.
Isaiah predicted the birth of one
"Immanuel" to a "young woman"; whereas the Evangelist Matthew has applied
it to the "Virgin Birth" of "Jesus" to Mary. It is an undeniable fact that
"Virgin Mary" did never give birth to some child who was named "Immanuel".
She gave "Virgin Birth" only to "Jesus Christ". As recorded in the Gospel
according to Matthew, the child was given the name "Jesus" by God Himself,
as revealed to the husband of Mary through an angel in a dream, even before
his birth:
But as he considered this [to divorce Mary quietly],
behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph,
son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall
[the imperative tone of "shall" should especially be noted.] call his
name Jesus [stress added], (...)." (...). When Joseph woke from sleep,
he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him [stress added];
he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son [stress
added]; and he called his name Jesus [stress added].34
The child to be born to Virgin Mary was
given the name "Jesus", even before her conception, rather even
before her marriage, as emphatically commanded by God Himself to Mary,
through the angel Gabriel. Matthew has recorded it as follows:
And the angel [Gabriel] said to her, "Do not be afraid,
Mary, for you have found favour with God. And behold, you will conceive
in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus [stress
added].(...)." And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since
I have no husband [stress added]? (..). And Mary said, "Behold, I am
the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And
the angel departed from her.35
Consequently, this child of the "Virgin Birth" was given
the name "Jesus" as already commanded by God to the father and the mother
of the child individually. On the other hand, in Isaiah’s prophecy as well,
it was God Himself, Who gave the name "Immanuel", to the ‘child of the
sign’. It will be appreciated that the evidence of the Gospels testifies
that Jesus has never been called with the name of "Immanuel" by anyone,
anywhere in the Bible. Jesus also did never use the name "Immanuel" for
himself in the whole of the NT. Jesus neither claimed that Isaiah’s Immanuel
prophecy of the OT was in his favour, nor he claimed anywhere in the NT
of the Bible that people should call him with the name of "Immanuel". It
is again interesting to note that even the writer of the "Gospel according
to Matthew" has neither himself used the name "Immanel" for Jesus, nor
he has quoted anybody else calling Jesus with the name "Immanuel" anywhere
in the whole of the Bible.
One child (the child of the ‘sign’ to Ahaz, as pronounced
through Isaiah) had been given the name "Immanuel" by God in the year c.734
BC in the OT of the Bible. The other child (the son of ‘Virgin Mary’) was
given the name "Jesus", also by God Himself, as recorded in the "Gospel
according to Matthew" of the NT, c.734 years later. Now, these are two
different names, having different meanings (Jesus = Saviour; Immanuel =
God is with us), relating to two different children, in different situations,
at different stages of history and having different aims and implications.
If both these names related to one and the same child, God might have pronounced
it clearly in unequivocal terms, leaving no room for undue speculations
and confusions. But the contents and the context of the prophecy clearly
denote that it relates only to one child – the child of the "Sign" addressed
to Ahaz by Isaiah, i.e. "Immanuel"--, and it has nothing to do with Jesus
Christ. The application of the prophecy of Isaiah to the "Virgin Birth"
of Jesus Christ purports as if:
Either God did not know how to convey
a theme in suitable and explicit words,
a) Or He intentionally wanted to misguide and confuse
the people,
b) Or, by the lapse of 734 years, God forgot that He
had previously ordered that the child be given the name "Immanuel" and
thus mistakenly ordered the "Child of the Virgin Birth" to be named as
"Jesus".
Nobody can imagine to assign any of these variables to
God.
Taken from another angle, it can be asserted that:
a) Jesus never claimed for himself
that he was "Immanuel" of Isaiah’s prophecy or that it was his name, given
to him by his parents as ordered to them by the Lord.
b) Isaiah also did not indicate
in this prophecy or in any other one that the people or the parents of
the child of the prophecy would call this "Immanuel" with the name of "Jesus";
and that the "Jesus" would, as a matter of fact, be "Immanuel" and none
else.
c) God Himself, as well, did no where
give "Jesus" the name "Immanuel" or called him as such.
d) No one of the Evangelists used "Immanuel"
as the name of "Jesus" anywhere in their Gospels. Even in the passages
claiming "Immanuel" to be applied to "Jesus", they used "Jesus" as his
name; and did not mention him with the name of "Immanuel".
Now, it is the case of everybody on earth
to consider as to by what trick of interpretation one could apply Isaiah’s
prophecy regarding "Immanuel" to "Jesus".
All the above discussions on the subject
categorically prove that "Isaiah’s Immanuel Prophecy" can by no way be
applied to the "Virgin Birth" of "Jesus Christ". Even then the Christian
authorities, quite baselessly and arbitrarily present it as a proof for
the "Virgin Birth" of "Jesus". On the other hand, the prophecies of the
Bible regarding the advent of the era of the Prophet of Islam are so explicit,
self-explanatory and exact, that it requires a great deal of obstinacy
not to consider them worth an objective appraisal. It would be desirable
that the principles of objective research be adhered to and the double
standard approach be discarded.
____________________
1. NASB - Mat. I:22-23, p.2.
2. TEV - [footnote ‘k’ on:] Isa.
VII;14, p.699.
3. NEB - p.509 and p.723.
4. RB - p.372 and p.521.
5. RSV (Cath. Ed.) - p.694 and p.1(NT)
6. NRSV (Cath. Ed. for India) - p.805
and p.1(NT).
7. NOAB - p.876-OT and p.2-NT.
8. NOAB - p.876-OT (as footnote).
9. NJB - p.1200 and p.1610.
10. CCB - foot-note on Isa. VII:14,
p.523f.
11. NAB - foot-note on Isa. VII:14,
p.788.
12. LB - foot-note on Isa. VII:14,
p.574.
13. CEV - foot-note on Isa. VII:14,
p.815.
14. NTSE - foot-note on Mt. I:23,
p.27.
15. Cavil = to find fault without
sufficient reason; make trifling objections.
16. Ransack = search thoroughly;
plunder.
17. A Dictionary of Christ and the
Gospels, Ed. by James Hastings, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1908, pp. 782f.
18. A New Commentary on Holy
Scripture, ed. Charles Gore, London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
Northumberland Avenue, W.C.2,1928, p.439.
19. Peake’ Commentary, op.cit.,
p.495.
20. Dummelow’s Commentary, p.624f,
626.
21. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Commentary, Vol.4, p.134f.
22. The Broadman B. Commentary, Vol.5,
p.215.
23. The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary, p.235.
24. The New Bible Commentary Revised,
p.596.
25. The New Bible Commentary, p.569.
26. A.R. Hulst, O. T. Translation
Problems, Published for the United Bible Societies by E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1960,
p.139.
27. Terry, Milton S., Biblical
Hermeneutics, New York: Phillips and Hunt, I883, p.331[as quoted by Encycl. of
Biblical Prophecy].
28. J. Barton Payne, Encycl. of
Biblical Prophecy, op.cit., p.291.
29. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, Ed.
by Dr. J.H. Hertz, C.H., Second Ed., London, Soncino Press, 1979, p.202.
30. J. Strong, A Concise Dictionary of
the words in The Greek Testament supplemented to Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984, p.20f; entry
Nos.1096 and 1135.
31. RSV-Mt. I:18-25 [as quoted by:
Synopsis of the Four Gospels, Ed. by Kurt Aland, United Bible Societies, USA.,
1985, p.7f].
32. RSV-Mt. II:1,3-7 [as quoted by:
Syn. of the 4 Gospels, op.cit., p.7].
33. CEV-Isa. VII:15f, p.774.
34. RSV (II Ed., 1971)-Mt. I:19-21,24
[as quoted by: Syn. of the 4 Gospels, op.cit., p.7f].
35. RSV (II Ed., 1971)-Mt. I:30f, 34,
38 [as quoted by: Syn. of the 4 Gospels, op.cit., p.3].