Isaiah 7:14 And The Birth of Jesus Chtist - Part 1

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel”

The very simple and Biblical answer to this question, is yes. The Apostle Matthew, who wrote under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, directly quotes this verse from the Prophet Isaiah, which he says is fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ.

“So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” (Gospel of Matthew 1:22-23)

Now, for those who hold that the Holy Bible, is the Ultimate Authority on all matters, and is the Word of Almighty God, and therefore, infallible and inerrant, this should end the matter. The Prophet Isaiah utters a prophecy from the Lord, and many hundreds of years later, the Apostle Matthew applies this to the conception of the Lord Jesus Christ. It should be noted, that the actual “birth” of Jesus Christ is not a “miracle”, as He was born like any other baby is. However, it is the “conception” in the womb of the virgin Mary, without any human father, that is “miraculous”. In this same chapter, Matthew writes: “ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit…for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (vs.18,20). In both verses we see the use of the Greek preposition, “ek” (of), where its meaning is “out of”, used of “the author of a thing”, and “of origin or birth”, (on usage, see, H.G. Liddell, R. Scott; A Greek and English Lexicon). Again, Matthews informs us, that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus Christ. In verse 16 we read: “And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ”. “of whom” in the Greek is “ex hes” (lit. “out of whom”), where “hes” is the “feminine singular”, which excludes Joseph, or any other “human father”. Luke in his Gospel has very similar language, where we read: “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (1:35). The two little Greek words, “ek sou” (out of you), has been removed in most modern versions of the Bible. No doubt another attempt by the enemy of the Faith of the Lord Jesus Christ, to attack His “birth”. “you” (sou), is again in the “singular number”, which removes any “human father” for the conception of the Lord Jesus Christ. The words “out of you”, no doubt did form part of this Gospel, as was known to many in the early Church, who quoted these words as part of this verse. And quoted by: JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D.100-165); IRENAEUS (A.D.130-200); IRENAEUS (A.D.130-200); HIPPOLYTUS (A.D.170-236); CYPRIAN (A.D.200-258); GREGORY THAUMATURGUS (A.D.213-270); PETER OF ALEXANDRIA (d.A.D.311); ATHANASIUS (A.D.296-373); CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (A.D.315-386); DIODORE (d.A.D.390); AMBROSE (A.D.339-397); JEROME (A.D.342-420); AUGUSTINE (A.D.354-430); JOHN CASSIAN (A.D.360-435); EPHRAEM (A.D.306-373); EPIPHANIUS (A.D.315-403); LEO "the great" (d.461); JOHN DAMASCUS (A.D.675-749). Anyone who has studies the text of the New Testament, will know that the evidence of these early writers is very strong and confirms that the words in question did form part of this passage in Luke’s Gospel. This information is very important, as it exposes the corruption of the “modern versions”, on this fundamental Doctrine of the Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

As in the text in Luke’s Gospel, Matthew 1:16 which teaches the same truth about Jesus’ birth from Mary only, and without any human father; many of the modern versions have distorted this by their mistranslating of the original Greek text. It is no small matter, than Bible versions change, omit and corrupt what the original text actually says. There is NO justification for these changes being made, especially when they deal with very important doctrinal statements, as we have here in both Matthew and Luke. A good example can be seen from the New International Versions of 1984 and 2011. In the 1984 version, Matthew 1:16 read: “the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”. However, in the 2011 version, it has been distorted to read: “the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah”. The emphasis in the original Greek, showing that Joseph is NOT the natural father of Jesus Christ, but the words “of whom”, which is singular in number, and feminine in gender, as been removed. This is deliberate tampering of the Word of God. While it is true, that Mary is referred to as “the mother of Jesus”, this does not necessarily mean that Joseph is not the “natural father” of Jesus, as it also says that he was the husband of Mary, where the normal conclusion would be that they were both the “natural parents” of Jesus Christ. The original Greek language, which is followed in the 1984 version, clearly shows this, which is lost in the 2011 version. This is a very important doctrinal passage and should not be changed by any translating.

Much has been written on the use of the Hebrew word “’almah”, in Isaiah 7:14, which Bible versions like the King James, have rendered, “virgin”, and the Revised Standard Version, among others, “young woman”. The former is clear to the fact, that the “woman” spoken of in this passage, is someone who has had no sexual relations with any man. Whereas, the latter simply speaks of someone who is a “woman” who is “young”, but who does not have to be a “virgin”. It is argued (by those who reject any reference to this verse, and Matthew’s quotation of it as being fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ), that, had the Prophet Isaiah had wished to show that the “woman” was a “virgin”, then he would have used the Hebrew word, “bethulah” instead. As we shall see, this is simply not the case, and Isaiah’s use of “’almah”, is indeed the best word, and the Apostle Matthew, writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is completely right in applying this prophecy to the “supernatural conception” of the Lord Jesus Christ. It should come as no surprise to any true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and one who hold the absolute authority of the Holy Bible, that the enemy of The faith, will try his utmost to destroy the Truth of Holy Scripture.

“’almah”, is used 7 times in the Old Testament, Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19; Isaiah 7:14; Psalm 68:26; Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8. In each instance, the word is used to show someone who has never had any sexual relations with a man, and therefore a “virgin”. However, the Hebrew word, “bethulah”, is used about 50 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. The basic meaning to this Hebrew word, as found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English lexicon, is “virgin”. This, however, is not the case as can be very clearly seen from the word’s use in Joel 1:8; “Grieve like a young woman (bethulah) dressed in sackcloth, mourning for the husband of her youth”. The fact that this person is told to grieve for her “husband”, clearly shows that she cannot be said to be a “virgin”. In which case, “bethulah”, here is used for a “married woman, a wife”. Further, its use elsewhere also shows, that the word itself cannot, have its basic meaning of “virgin”. Genesis 24:16, "and the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin (bethulah), neither had any man known her...". Leviticus 21:3, "And for his sister a virgin (bethulah), that is nigh unto him, which had no husband...". Judges 21:12, "and they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead, four hundred young virgin (bethulah), that had known no man, by lying with any male...". If, as supposed by some, “bethulah”, did signify someone who was a “virgin”, then why is there a need to further qualify their “virginity”, by, “neither had any man known her, and “which had no husband”, and “that had known no man, by lying with any male”? Surely the word “bethulah”, if it did mean “virgin”, would be sufficient for its purpose. If we were to say that someone was a “virgin”, then all would know that it means that it refers to someone who has not had any “sexual relations”. There would be no need for adding, “they have not had any sexual relations”, as the word itself says exactly this. Yet, there are still those who will argue, that “bethulah” is the right choice of word, had Isaiah wished to show that person referred to in 7:14, was a “virgin”, even though the facts say otherwise. While the meanings of words can be important, this cannot be the only factor in determining the right meaning of any passage in Scripture. The context that the word is used in, and other relating factors must also be considered.

 

Hi, thanks for your comments.

Let me show what the Greek text says for both Matthew 1:16, and Luke 1:35, then you can please show me where I am wrong.

Matthew 1:16, "Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός." (And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ)

"ἐξ ἧς", literally "out of whom". "ἧς" is singular in number, which excludes Joseph, and feminine in gender, which includes ONLY Mary. The language use by the Holy Spirit is very precise, and cannot mean anything other than what it says.

Luke 1:35, "καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι, διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ" (And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.)

Here also, like in Matthew 1:16, we have "ἐκ σοῦ" (out of you), where "σοῦ" is in the "singular" number, showing that Jesus was born from Mary as His "biological" mother, which excludes Joseph, who was Jesus' "adopted father". The "σοῦ" (you). corresponds with the "αὐτῇ" (her), which in verse 15 says it was MARY that the angel was talking to.