Were there two virgin births?

[Harel13]

Hello all.

"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. (By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned." etc (Isa. 7:10-16)

Christians generally interpret these verses as being a prophecy referring to the virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. However, it seems clear (though I may be wrong) that Isaiah is at the very least referring to a woman who was already alive at his time (considering that he was giving a sign to King Achaz). Does this mean that according to Christians there were two virgin births (one during Isaiah's time and one during Mary's)?

 

[Eyes to See]

That prophecy does not exactly state who Immauel was. It could have been Isaiah's son. Here is information from the book Isaiah's Prophecy Light for All Mankind a verse by verse look at Isaiah:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102000029#h=22

The Sign of Immanuel

14. How does Jehovah show his faithfulness to his covenant with David?

14 Jehovah remains faithful toward his covenant with David. A sign was offered, a sign will be given! Isaiah continues: “Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey he will eat by the time that he knows how to reject the bad and choose the good. For before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.”—Isaiah 7:14-16.

15. What two questions does the prophecy about Immanuel answer?

15 Here is good news for anyone fearing that the invaders will put an end to the Davidic line of kings. “Immanuel” means “With Us Is God.” God is with Judah and will not allow his covenant with David to be nullified. In addition, Ahaz and his people are told not only what Jehovah will do but also when he will do it. Before the boy Immanuel is old enough to distinguish between good and bad, the enemy nations will be destroyed. And this proves true!

16. Why may Jehovah have left the identity of Immanuel in Ahaz’ day uncertain?

16 The Bible does not reveal whose child Immanuel is. But since the young Immanuel is to serve as a sign and Isaiah later states that he and his children “are as signs,” Immanuel may be a son of the prophet. (Isaiah 8:18) Perhaps Jehovah leaves the identity of Immanuel in Ahaz’ day uncertain so as not to distract later generations from the Greater Immanuel. Who is that?

17. (a) Who is the Greater Immanuel, and what did his birth signify? (b) Why can God’s people cry out today, “With us is God”?

17 Outside of the book of Isaiah, the name Immanuel occurs only once in the Bible, at Matthew 1:23. Jehovah inspired Matthew to apply the prophecy of Immanuel’s birth to the birth of Jesus, the rightful Heir to the throne of David. (Matthew 1:18-23) The birth of the first Immanuel was a sign that God had not forsaken the house of David. Likewise, the birth of Jesus, the Greater Immanuel, was a sign that God had not forsaken mankind or his Kingdom covenant with David’s house. (Luke 1:31-33) With Jehovah’s chief representative now among mankind, Matthew could truly say, ‘With us is God.’ Today, Jesus rules as heavenly King and is with his congregation on earth. (Matthew 28:20) Surely, God’s people have added reason to cry out boldly: “With us is God!”

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Everything in Christian theology seems to quite often be explained as happening twice for some reason. For example, some interpret the Revelation verse about the devil falling and taking one third of the stars as not only referring to the devil falling, but once it hits Earth, the dragon becomes a kingdom. I see some problems in that interpretation I mentioned though.

 

[Harel13]

That prophecy does not exactly state who Immauel was. It could have been Isaiah's son. Here is information from the book Isaiah's Prophecy Light for All Mankind a verse by verse look at Isaiah:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102000029

The Sign of Immanuel

14. How does Jehovah show his faithfulness to his covenant with David?

14 Jehovah remains faithful toward his covenant with David. A sign was offered, a sign will be given! Isaiah continues: “Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey he will eat by the time that he knows how to reject the bad and choose the good. For before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.”—Isaiah 7:14-16.

15. What two questions does the prophecy about Immanuel answer?

15 Here is good news for anyone fearing that the invaders will put an end to the Davidic line of kings. “Immanuel” means “With Us Is God.” God is with Judah and will not allow his covenant with David to be nullified. In addition, Ahaz and his people are told not only what Jehovah will do but also when he will do it. Before the boy Immanuel is old enough to distinguish between good and bad, the enemy nations will be destroyed. And this proves true!

16. Why may Jehovah have left the identity of Immanuel in Ahaz’ day uncertain?

16 The Bible does not reveal whose child Immanuel is. But since the young Immanuel is to serve as a sign and Isaiah later states that he and his children “are as signs,” Immanuel may be a son of the prophet. (Isaiah 8:18) Perhaps Jehovah leaves the identity of Immanuel in Ahaz’ day uncertain so as not to distract later generations from the Greater Immanuel. Who is that?

17. (a) Who is the Greater Immanuel, and what did his birth signify? (b) Why can God’s people cry out today, “With us is God”?

17 Outside of the book of Isaiah, the name Immanuel occurs only once in the Bible, at Matthew 1:23. Jehovah inspired Matthew to apply the prophecy of Immanuel’s birth to the birth of Jesus, the rightful Heir to the throne of David. (Matthew 1:18-23) The birth of the first Immanuel was a sign that God had not forsaken the house of David. Likewise, the birth of Jesus, the Greater Immanuel, was a sign that God had not forsaken mankind or his Kingdom covenant with David’s house. (Luke 1:31-33) With Jehovah’s chief representative now among mankind, Matthew could truly say, ‘With us is God.’ Today, Jesus rules as heavenly King and is with his congregation on earth. (Matthew 28:20) Surely, God’s people have added reason to cry out boldly: “With us is God!”

So in other words, are you saying that no, the birth during the time of Isaiah was not a virgin birth?

 

[Eyes to See]

So in other words, are you saying that no, the birth during the time of Isaiah was not a virgin birth?

Correct.

So in other words, are you saying that no, the birth during the time of Isaiah was not a virgin birth?

A good question. I did further research and found this:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002152#h=9

It may be noted, however, that the Hebrew word here translated “maiden” is not bethu·lahʹ, meaning, specifically, “virgin,” but is ʽal·mahʹ, having a broader reference to a young woman, who could be either a virgin maiden or a recently married woman. ʽAl·mahʹ as a common noun also occurs in six other texts, more than one of which specifically involves virgin maidens.—Ge 24:43 (compare vs 16); Ex 2:8; Ps 68:25; Pr 30:19; Ca 1:3; 6:8.

The same reference work states about the possible identity of Immanuel:

Some have suggested that in the type back there “Immanuel” was a third son of Isaiah, perhaps by a Jewish maiden who may have become a second wife of the prophet. Certain Jewish commentators endeavored to apply the prophecy to the birth of Ahaz’ son Hezekiah. This, however, is ruled out, since the prophecy was uttered during Ahaz’ reign (Isa 7:1), making Hezekiah at least nine years old at the time.—2Ki 16:2; 18:1, 2.

Another possible candidate was Isaiah’s second son, mentioned in the next chapter, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, concerning whom it was said: “Before the boy will know how to call out, ‘My father!’ and ‘My mother!’ one will carry away the resources of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of Assyria.” (Isa 8:1-4) Certainly this echoes what was said about Immanuel: “Before the boy will know how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings [of Damascus and Samaria] you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.” (Isa 7:16) Also, the birth of Isaiah’s second son is presented in close connection with the further prophecy involving Immanuel and, as Immanuel was to be a “sign,” so also Isaiah said: “I and the children whom Jehovah has given me are as signs.”—Isa 7:14; 8:18.

 

[Harel13]

Correct.

Thanks. This is really the only thing I was wondering about, not the identity of the child. That's another subject.

 

[Eyes to See]

Thanks. This is really the only thing I was wondering about, not the identity of the child. That's another subject.

If you are interested I will give you a link I recommend you save. This is a scripture index on the Watchtower Library that you can find online. I often use it when researching questions such as yours. Just go to the scripture you have a question on and look at the sited information. There usually is an answer for a question you may have. Not always:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r...cations-index/index-1986-2020/scripture-index

 

[Brickjectivity]

"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. (By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned." etc (Isa. 7:10-16)

I reject the idea that Matthew is ignorant of the passage alluded to, and I think his reason is (actually) other than to claim a prognostication despite appearances. Every conceivable alternative interpretation of his fulfillments depends on knowing how the church begins, but that is precisely what I do not know. Fortunately I don't need to know, so I can let Matthew be an obscure text with multiple interpretations of these fulfillments (of which this reference to Isaiah is only one). All of Matthew's fulfillments use very confusing language, never referring to any actually predicted event. I don't see how Matthew could do this on accident even if he were ignorant. There are actual predictions in the scriptures that he could try using, but he uses none of them. Instead he claims predictions out of passages which predict nothing at all. Its got to be on purpose.

Christians generally interpret these verses as being a prophecy referring to the virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. However, it seems clear (though I may be wrong) that Isaiah is at the very least referring to a woman who was already alive at his time (considering that he was giving a sign to King Achaz). Does this mean that according to Christians there were two virgin births (one during Isaiah's time and one during Mary's)?

They do read like a prognostication. There's no getting around that, so the only wonder is why Matthew does it. Either he's being nasty or he's got some other reason.

 

[Harel13]

nasty

Nasty how?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Nasty how?

By nasty I refer to deception with intent to corrupt, to capture, for greed, for political gain. It would be in that case an actual attempt to dupe people. This also depends upon how the church begins, but I doubt Matthew is nefarious. Matthew would have a difficult time finding someone in his day who both cared what Isaiah was saying and yet hadn't checked the prognostications in Matthew's gospel. I think he'd be shocked to find what people think about them, today; but I could be wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no virgin birth. Absent from the works attributed to Paul, Mark, and John, it's an embarrassing midrash found in Matthew, copied by Luke, and likely the result of the fact that the authors of both were reliant upon a Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 (used as prooftext).

 

[Estro Felino]

1) Well...that young woman is probably Achaz's wife...so she has nothing to do with Mary.

2) an Italian philologist explained that in Hebrew there is a difference between almah (young woman) and betulah (virgin).
This is described as a young woman who is already pregnant. Not a virgin.

3) in the Protoevangelium of James, Mary is clearly described as a virgin. Married to Joseph, a very old widow with children, who was not supposed to breed with her.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There is no virgin birth. Absent from the works attributed to Paul, Mark, and John, it's an embarrassing midrash found in Matthew, copied by Luke, and likely the result of the fact that the authors of both were reliant upon a Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 (used as prooftext).

That is a valuable point though translation error would not explain Matthew's handling of other scriptures where he says they have been fulfilled. These cannot all be due to translation errors. Because of that to say that it was due to a translation error in this case is unsatisfying to me.

The author could know about the translation difference, and it might not necessarily matter prosaically to him and his readers as much as it does to us, today. We tend to approach this like its extremely serious, but Matthew and his readers may not have. Maybe to the author it is not about whether Mary is genuinely virgin. Maybe the symbolism is what matters to them? We take this very seriously, and so we assume they do. They may not. They might think of our approach is very strange.

 

[Estro Felino]

As for the Protoevangelium of James (the main source that witnesses Mary's perpetual virginity), I just want to underline this :
Apocryph text doesn't mean unreliable. In Greek the verb apo-krypto means to hide something fraudulently.
So it deals with texts hidden , kept away from the public. But still true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is a valuable point though translation error would not explain Matthew's handling of other scriptures where he says they have been fulfilled. These cannot all be due to translation errors.

A general discussion of the author, his milieu, and his intent is far beyond the scope of this thread.

Because of that to say that it was due to a translation error in this case is unsatisfying to me.

The fact remains that the that author seems to be reliant upon the LXX, and the connotation and denotation of parthenos is significantly different than that of almah. Whether you find this to be relevant is entirely up to you.

 

[Native]

Does this mean that according to Christians there were two virgin births (one during Isaiah's time and one during Mary's)?

No, this just describes the similar myth in different cultural periods.

The story of "Virgin (or miraculous) Birth" is known and told "all over the cultural places on Earth" as mentioned in this link - Miraculous births - Wikipedia

IMO this telling is connected to the cultural Stories of Creation as a cosmological and cosmogonical description of how the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way, was created by a prime god and goddess, i.e. without and before any "meating between a terrestrial man and woman" as told in the Virgin Birth.

The "divine son" in this case is an astronomical figure and not one who once lived on the Earth.

 

[Harel13]

No, this just describes the similar myth in different cultural periods.

Is this the Christian view in your opinion or are you presenting a non-Christian view on the matter?

 

[Native]

Is this the Christian view in your opinion or are you presenting a non-Christian view on the matter?

Yes - and No
I think the "astro.myths" was the early original understanding - but later on, these astro-myths became forgotten and misinterpreted as personified issues, both as a personified god and goddess and "her son" as a person once living on the Earth.

Note: Did you study the linked contents here - Miraculous births - Wikipedia

 

[Harel13]

There is no virgin birth.

While I would probably be one of the last people to disagree with you on this, my understanding is that nonetheless, a majority of Christians do believe this. Hence this thread.

 

[Harel13]

Note: Did you study the linked contents here - Miraculous births - Wikipedia

I was busy with several things yesterday, so I'm only responding now. I was just making sure previously that we weren't getting off of the thread's topic, which is what Christians think of the reality of this story with regards to what it prophesized according to them.

Yes, I'm aware that miraculous births are prevalent in various myths.

I think the "astro.myths" was the early original understanding - but later on, these astro-myths became forgotten and misinterpreted as personified issues, both as a personified god and goddess and "her son" as a person once living on the Earth.

I'm not following. What are "astro-myths" and what do they say about the Christian view of what happened in this story?