Objection 4.3: Isaiah 7:14 does not prophesy a virgin birth!

Does Isaiah 7:14 prophesy a virgin birth? Weigh the evidence and judge for yourself!

[junebug]

For those folks who do not believe that the Bible is God breathed, this point I will make will be a mute point because one would have to believe that the Holy spirit truly is the one who wrote scripture. but for those folks who do believe that the bible is God breathed, this point is one to consider. Although this word for "virgin" is seemingly under scrutiny in the context Dr. Brown speaks of.... what about Luke 1:34 where Mary herself says "How will this be, " Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" .... Mary herself confirms this. why put one verse under such a microscope when there is another verse that confirms the meaning of the first one.

[flimsyjimnz]

Mary stated she was a *virgin, * - “How can I [get pregnant], since I have not known a man?”

[dominic]

PROVERBS 3:5, ”LEAN NOT TO THINE UNDERSTANDING BUT IN ALL YOUR WAYS ACKNOWLEDGE THE LORD.”

[Sefton]

He is conceding that it's not a prophecy about a virgin giving birth to God. He keeps referring to it as a "supernatural birth", shying away from the full Christian claim.

[NancyGarcia-opkg]

I know one thing everything will be clear when Yeshua returns

[tookie]

He didn’t even answer it. The only explanation was “bc it was in the Greek translation”

[awakentruth]

Bethula means virgin who has not slept with a man. Almar is a female who is at a age where she can become pregnant .. So Bethula is in relation to someone, who has not had sex yet, so if a female at the age, who is already reached her flower and is at the age of 22 as a example, then that woman is Bethula.

[chad]

Dr. Brown, why exactly is the initial fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 or Isaiah 9:6 insufficient to explain what is meant by those verses? Why assume that there was ever intended to be a prophetic double meaning behind the text?

[Jack-vyvx]

Regarding Isaiah 7:14, the context is utterly irrelevant to some future prophecy about a virgin birth.

The chapter must be read in its proper context.

The chapter deals with various enemies’ threats against Judah, and the ensuing wars.

Verses 1-10 discuss impending wars, and that Ahaz should not be afraid, as their plans won’t come to fruition.
Verse 11 conveys that Ahaz should, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God..”. Ask a sign regarding this harm not befalling him.
Verse 12 tells us that Ahaz decided not to ask and test God.
Verse 13 has Isaiah insisting that he should ask.
Verse 14 finally relates that the sign will be given anyways.
And what’s the sign? According to the gospels, the correct understanding is that, “There will be a virgin birth a few hundred years down the line”.

What about Ahaz’s concerns?

Nah, God would rather tell him about some irrelevant virgin birth that will occur a few hundred years later.

Ahaz shouldn’t be afraid of impending war because in a few hundred years Jesus is coming! This makes no coherent sense.

Also, to make this clearer, it says, “For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." (7:16)
This implies that that God will destroy Ahaz's enemies just before the child is able to tell right from wrong.

Now, according to the the gospels, Ahaz’s enemies will only be dead a few hundred years later, some time before Jesus will distinguish between wrong and right, not only will they have disappeared long before this time, he, himself, will have also perished. This conveys nothing about his current predicament.

In other words, the meaning of the verse would imply, “Ahaz don’t be afraid, actually, be very afraid.
This is pure butchery.


Or, perhaps, in order to make the context more relavent to the Christian interpretation, some could claim that Ahaz was concerned with the “Davidic dynasty”, that it shouldn’t perish, and that he was reassured by the sign of there being a virgin birth 700 years later, insinuating that the “Davidic line” will survive.


1. First off, there is absolutely no allusion in the text of Ahaz being concerned with the preservation of the “Davidic line”.
Rather, the only matter that could be derived from the verses, according to their simple meaning, is fear of immanent danger, as expressed by the members of Ahaz’s brethren, Ahaz included. There is no altruistic concern.
The verses speak of fear, not some type of consideration for the future.

As it says, “And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim, " and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind.” (Isaiah 7:2)
Also, “And you shall say to him, "Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint…”. (Isaiah 7:4)
The verses undoubtedly and clearly convey “fear”, fear of enemy attack. This cannot be overlooked.

At this point we could actually stop, however, purely for argument’s sake, let us conjure that this consideration was present, aside for the fear.
We can’t obviate his “fear”, nevertheless, perhaps we could say that he was genuinely concerned with the crown being snatched from David?

Now, on the other hand, we can’t say he was only concerned with the “Davidic line”, never mind the lack of it’s mention, contextually, from what the verses actually say, the fear element is emphasized, both from his perspective and from God’s response.
And these “fear elements” would be quite superfluous if this were the only intention.


2. Now, even if this unfounded concern was true, the subject remains plagued with difficulties.
Whether we say that he is “also concerned with the Davidic line”, or “only concerned”, what type of a sign is it if he can’t witness it?
Every sign in the Bible is something the individual witnesses, and whereby comes to trust. A sign is suppose to create trust not be contingent upon trust, that defeats the purpose of a sign. The sign is rendered useless, if implemented for this purpose.


3. And, now, the question that naturally follows from our previous objection, wouldn’t the birth of someone in his own days be of much greater pertinence, and a true sign he can relate to ? If you would have to choose between one and the other, the choice is obvious.


4. Back to the “fear” element. Ahaz has enemies breathing down his neck, an immediate concern, the fact that the Davidic line survives 700 years later, does not in any way address the immediate need for protection. For it still doesn’t mean he will survive his enemies’ attacks, it just means the line will somehow survive. Granted, that he was also concerned for the Davidic line, according to this interpretation, we cannot remove the fact that the verses speak of his own terror, and even of God’s response telling him “not to fear”. This dread is not in any way being attended to with a sign 700 years later. (Based on the general context and response from God, Isaiah 7:1-14)



5. The verses also indicate that there is an immediate relevance with the sign and the impending threat. As it says, “For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." (7:16). This implies that that God will destroy Ahaz's enemies just before the child is able to tell right from wrong. The verse clearly reassures him regarding enemies that he now faces, and that they will perish before this child distinguishes between right and wrong. Now, if the matter is contingent upon Jesus’ birth, 700 years later, before he distinguishes between right and wrong, this would render his enemies perishing utterly impertinent. For the verse would then be saying, “Don’t worry your enemies won’t be destroyed for another 700 years! By that time, everyone will be long gone, himself included. The sign cannot be associated to Ahaz in a manner that deals with the future, the intent bound to the consideration of the “Davidic line”. (Based on Isaiah 7:14-17)


6. Furthermore, another very important example of how the sign must entirely be relevant to Ahaz. In verse 7 it is stated, “So said the Lord God, 'Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass.” This is clearly referring to the plans of Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, with their ally Efraim. They won’t succeed in harming him. A concern for the “Davidic line” is impertinent to his being harmed, being that they are not mutually exclusive; because he may be harmed, yet, the Davidic would still survive.


Therefore, you are coerced to say, that when God sends him a sign, the sign will support the very thing God spoke about.
This is the only concern God himself mentioned. Consequently, the sign can only be that which addresses this matter, and this matter only.
Remember, the sign must corroborate him not getting harmed. The fact that he has a descendant born of a virgin 700 years later, in no way assures his immediate safety. He may perish, yet, have have descendants. The two have no pertinence. (Based on Isaiah 7:7 and 7:14)




7. Furthermore, and very importantly, as someone proficient in ancient Hebrew, this interpretation can never see the light of day, as the word used here for “virgin”, does not mean virgin. The etymology of the word almah/עלמה. The root word being עלם, a primitive root signifying strength and endurance, hence, youth. As in, ״…and they will also believe in you forever/לעולם/leolam”, (exodus 19:9); endurance is rooted in עלם.
(This is unlike the root for betulah/בתולה, from the root בתל, a primitive root signifying “separate and or secluded”, etymologically related to the root badal/בדל, which conveys a similar meaning, namely, “separate and divide”. Each expressing, however, a different type of separation. One exclusively used to express chastity.

We can appreciate how the root word conveys nothing about virginity, but rather strength and endurance, vigor, henceforth, a youth. There is a vast amount of evidence that can be provided regarding this last point, however, this would be another discussion entirely.

[Jack-vyvx]

Another possible manner in which Christians try to resolve the difficulties inherent in such a stance, is through the claim of a “dual prophecy”.
A prophecy that has two applications, two fulfillments.


1. Why should we assume that there are two fulfillments of this prophecy ? There appears to be absolutely no reason to assume such an interpretation, other than, a will to insert Christian theology.


2. If dual prophecy were to have application, one could arbitrarily insert whatever he desires, wherever he wants. Can we honestly consider this mode of interpretation ?


3. As we said in note 1, there is no reason two apply dual prophecy. In fact, being that the context clearly refers to an event occurring in the now, this would preclude any suggestion of “another prophecy”.

By applying the context, we encounter many challenges. There is no reason to believe in dual prophecy because there is absolutely no anchor upon which to base it on. The context doesn’t support this duality. How so?

4. If the intent is, as well, to a future prophecy, 700 years later, this is incongruent, for Ahaz requires only a sign relavent to him. It’s utterly superfluous to allude to some virgin birth 700 years in the future. (Based on general context)

5. Ahaz is currently surrounded by enemies he doesn’t need an allusion to some virgin birth 700 years in the future. (Based on Isaiah 7:2)I

6. God wants to mend Ahaz’s fear about impeding war, it’s utterly superfluous to mention a virgin birth 700 years in the future. (Based on Isaiah 7:4)

7. The sign is relevant to before when this child will distinguish between right and wrong, at that time Ahaz’s enemies will fall, there is no reason to allude to a virgin birth 700 hundreds in the future. (Based on Isaiah 7:15-16)

8. Furthermore, and very importantly, as someone proficient in ancient Hebrew, this interpretation can never see the light of day, as the word used here for “virgin”, does not mean virgin. The etymology of the word almah/עלמה, is rooted in the word עלם/alam, a primitive root signifying “strength and endurance” (similar to the Aramaic עלים), hence, youth.
As in, ״…and they will also believe in you forever/לעולם/leolam”(exodus 19:9), from the root עלם/alam, for endurance, strength, is rooted in עלם/alam.

We can appreciate how the root word conveys nothing about virginity, rather it’s an expression of vigor, and, henceforth, a youth.
There is a vast amount of evidence that can be provided regarding this last point, however, this would be another discussion entirely.

9. Furthermore, and very interestingly, if it’s a dual prophecy, what other virgin birth is being alluded to in Ahaz’s time? Isn’t there only one virgin birth? Only one Jesus ? All the more so, is this difficult, being that the main prophecy is undoubtedly for Ahaz, as clearly established contextually, this would imply that the principal “virgin birth” is relevant to Ahaz’s time. This last objection completely undermines the uniqueness of the Christian claim. It’s quite ironic, the answer they try to promote, actually creates the grounds to contradict Christianity at its core…..

[jaqian]

And yet Matthew one of the Apostles clearly cites Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emman′u-el”

[jvlp]

I am just BAFFLED/PUZZLED...
Questions:
1. Why the Jewish Rabbis interpreted the Prophecy of Isaiah differently from the Christians Theologians?...
2. How do the Christian Rabbis/apologetics see clearly the interpretation of Prophet Isaiah but the Jewish rabbis did not see it?
2. Who has the FULL authority to interpret the Prophecy of Isaiah, the Jewish Scholars or Christian Scholars?...
3. Will Prophet Isaiah write something that contradicts the Jewish belief and interpretation?...
4. Why does Prophet Isaiah never explain his Prophecy, does he know what it was all about and why he wrote it but did not explain it to the Jews?
5. Do you mean to say, only AFTER the Christians were founded by Christ Jesus that Prophet Isaiah's Prophecy was interpreted CLEARLY and CORRECTLY different from what the Jews had interpreted before Christ Jesus arrived in this world?
6. If we go Go back in time to before Christ Jesus was born, would the Prophecy of Isaiah be the same interpretation as today?... the Jews back then should have understood those matters before Christ Jesus was born... why should be now different?
7. Is there any Public Debate between Jewish Rabbis and Christian Rabbis/Apologetics we could watch regarding this topic, the Isaiah Prophecy of the Virgin Maiden who gave Birth?

[raysherlock]

Thank God for the Holy Spirit I received it, no man can take it from me or no book can describe in words what happens when you receive the Holy Spirit it's a spiritual birth, Just like Jesus said, Jesus is the Way Truth and Life.

[Sefton]

You sound like you're trying to sell a used car without an engine.

[freefree]

With all due respect very convoluted discourse.

[timmyturner]

Early in the video you read straight from the Bible and said “THE alman”. At 5:30 you said “AN” Alman. Why?

[TheZenGarden_]

Isaiah 43

*11 I, even I, Am YHWH; and beside Me there is NO saviour.*

[tonydanza]

So Mr.Brown is saying to throw away Matthew Ch.1:23 ? as a Messianic prophecy? Or is he worried about the history of the linguistics? I'm sure, we highly doubt how the origin of the word had anything to do with how the prophecy is placed in both the Old and New Testament.

[benevolent]

Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the verses that follow. It anticipated no further opinion. "Then the Lord said to me, 'Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it [a]in ordinary letters: [b]Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey. 2 And [c]I will take to Myself faithful witnesses for testimony, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.” 3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the Lord said to me, 'Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; for before the boy knows how to cry out ‘My father’ or ‘My mother, ’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” (Isiah 8:1-4)

[GeoffShrt]

You say that the Hebrew word "betulah" only means virgin when used in a legal context. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Joel 1:8