Virgin Conceives: Evangelists; Isaiah; Jesus

Virgin pregnant!

The record is very clear. However, in this post on Mary's child, I look at the more tricky "prophet" issue.

Matthew chapter 1

This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. Joseph, to whom she was engaged, was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her publicly, so he decided to break the engagement[a] quietly (18-19 NLT).

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[a] because he will save his people from their sins” (20-21 NIV).

All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means, “God is with us.” When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife but had no marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son,[a] and he named him Jesus (22-25 NRSVUE).

Luke (1:34-35) also makes it very clear that Mary’s pregnancy was a miraculous event and not of human origin. I have previously posted about the birth event. Here I am focussing on Matthew’s statement of prophetic "fulfilment".

Matthew often refers to Scripture being fulfilled, sometimes naming the source. In relation to the birth of the Christ-child he simply quotes, citing "The Prophet". Probably he is quoting from a Septuagint (LXX) version of Isaiah 7:14, in the case of one LXX manuscript, almost letter for letter (“they will” replaces “she will”). This affects us today because the LXX translators, in turning Hebrew into Greek, used the definite “virgin” word whilst the (known) Hebrew simply has an ambiguous word for a young woman suitable for marriage.

Long, long, ago, and far, far, away, this distinction, between "original" and translation version, was made in a recorded dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho (the Jew).

And Trypho answered, “The Scripture has not, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,’ and so on, as you quoted. (Chapter 67 Dialogue Justin (110-165) & Trypho. Logos Virtual Library.) 

Thus Trypho corrected Justin, who was not apparently deflected. Many modern English translations honour the available textual evidence (see texts and marginal notes).

We note above from Matthew that Mary was betrothed (“engaged”) to Joseph. Luke also states that fact (in chapters 1 and 2). Joseph was afraid of what he had learnt (by gossip?) - concerned about Mary’s (obvious?) pregnancy. At that time, and up until not so long ago, virginity was very highly prized, at least in some strata of society. That is, female virginity. The lack of proof of female virginity would instantly end a marriage or betrothal. It is obvious that until modern times a healthy nubile woman might easily become pregnant from intercourse, thus demonstrating the fact of sexual encounter. (Not so obviously demonstrated, of course, for the male contributor of his cell [sperm]).

The gravity of the virginity matter is illustrated in this extract from the more ancient Old Testament (OT): “Suppose a man marries a woman, but after sleeping with her, he turns against her and publicly accuses her of shameful conduct, saying, ‘When I married this woman, I discovered she was not a virgin.’ Then the woman’s father and mother must bring the proof of her virginity to the elders as they hold court at the town gate. Her father must say to them, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to be his wife, and now he has turned against her. He has accused her of shameful conduct, saying, “I discovered that your daughter was not a virgin.” But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they must spread her bed sheet before the elders. The elders must then take the man and punish him (Deuteronomy 22:13-18 NLT).....

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel (Deuteronomy 22:20-22 NIV). The Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran have 30 copies of Deuteronomy, which seems significant. Isaiah texts number 20, also significant.

The above passage suggests canny parents obtained and retained the “sheet” from their daughter’s wedding night, just in case. This passage was part of Jesus' community so quite possibly there was an established procedure to cover the practice of collecting evidence. In the same text that savage death penalty is prescribed for transgression of marriage purity. That penalty would apply to a “betrothed” couple, like Joseph and Mary.

Although not so stated, from the perspective of the Nazareth community all those years ago, Mary was no virgin; no longer. (I find no trace of Mary’s parents in the record; I wonder who spoke up for an orphan girl?) The account tells us that Joseph was given guidance by God and, contrary to his culture, continued with the marriage “contract” with pregnant Mary. Was Joseph’s deeply troubled mind in the light of the danger to Mary if he exposed her (by divorce) for becoming pregnant (see above)?

Mary herself had willingly acceded to God’s incredible plan for her to bear a child without a male contribution (see Luke 1:38), also contrary to her culture. (In fact, I presume she then knowingly sacrificed any possibility of the evidence of her virginity - how could it remain after the delivery of her firstborn?)

Matthew’s account proclaimed that the young woman (Mary) becoming pregnant was “...to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet ....”. Although here the Greek uses a purpose construction (conjunction and subjunctive), the incarnation of the Son of God was hardly God’s plan to validate a verse! The use of "purpose" seems routine in many of Matthew's citations - see below. In the providence of God, the LXX translator here had pointed to a virgin, though the original Hebrew did not necessarily do that (see Trypho, above). That being so, I see the emphasis being the fact that a pregnancy was happening in accord with God’s plan, and the baby would be given a significant name, both in Isaiah’s day and in Mary’s day (Joseph’s day). A pregnancy at a critical time. A pregnancy to culminate in a birth at a (fairly) predictable future moment. I wonder if, in daily life, Isaiah's baby was called Emmanuel? The name is not recorded again in the case of Jesus, nor of the Isaiah baby. Remarkable also is the confidence before the fact that the baby would be a male. Quite common in these days for the disclosure of the gender on the unborn child.

The Greek Old Testament (LXX) was clearly very prominent in the early years of the first century. I have not done the research but I suspect the LXX was the most used source for the Word of God.  The original O.T. was that in Hebrew. The LXX is translation from original Hebrew. Via the apps (Blue Letter Bible and Bible Hub), I found the opportunity to compare two LXX versions of Isaiah 7:14. They were remarkably close in wording and had the same meaning. The "virgin" word is in both. Which was closest to the earliest Hebrew? That I can not tell. The oldest known text of the Hebrew OT itself is not very old. The complete Hebrew OT is the meticulous Masoretic, of the 6th - 10th centuries, known today from the Leningrad Codex, dated to 1009-1010. The oldest textual evidence for Hebrew Isaiah is the Great Scroll from Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls).

The Israel Museum has the marvellous presentation of the entire Great Isaiah Scroll (1Q1A) in their "Shrine of the Book", available for viewing online. That scroll also is presented on the Museum's website, alongside the Masoretic, in English translation. As far as Isaiah 7:14 is concerned, there are interesting correspondences and variations. In common they have "the young woman", "son", and "Immanuel". The old Isaiah scroll does not avoid the "Name", the 4 letters in Hebrew (YHWH) which is discussed in Exodus 3.

I also can not tell if Matthew read Hebrew. How can anyone know that, 2,000 years on? If he did, what was in the text he had? How do you know? Nor can I know how many of the various LXX texts Matthew had available. Did he depend on Aramaic? All in all, with so many variables, it is clearly God's work that we have the story reliably passed down all this way. **

Long before Matthew, in the days of Isaiah, there had been a complex military-political situation. In Jerusalem, Ahaz, Davidic king of Judah was under threat. Would the errant ruler change and trust God? Isaiah insists the baby to be born was a significant marker for his community, and God was still God, despite the sad verdict on the Royal Cou rt of Judah: In the seventeenth year of Pekah son of Remaliah, King Ahaz son of Jotham of Judah began to reign. Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign; he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. He did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord his God, as his ancestor David had done, but he walked in the way of the kings of Israel. He even made his son pass through fire, according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord had driven out before the people of Israel (2 Kings 16:1-3 NRSVUE). In a time of grave danger, and political intrigue, and religious apostasy in favour of evil, the king was told the time was limited. God was acting. The pregnancy was irreversible!  (A specific woman is in view.) The Prophet was "forthtelling" to the errant king.

The true prophets fearlessly criticised the failings of the government and their community. They warned of consequences from God and called on all to repent and change their ways. They insisted God was not dead! That what God had said he would do, God would do.

Ahaz and his supporters were clearly condemned. What about the "ordinary" folk? My inclination is to think the failure was "at the top". However, I once heard an Israeli archeologist speaking about finding huge numbers of household gods in the ancient homes they excavated in Israel. At various points in the OT record it is clear that the broad community has succumbed to their temptation to adopt more tangible gods. For example: “Now then,” said Joshua, “throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel” (Joshua 24:23 NIV). How many were thrown away, and how many secreted by their owners?

So, in similar vein, in a Palestine ruled by Rome’s minions about 6-4 BCE, God was actually present and active. He was setting out to save his people from their sins.

“From their sins” my Bibles have it. Jesus’ coming was all about salvation from sins. Peter put it bluntly to his people: The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead after you killed him by hanging him on a cross.[a] Then God put him in the place of honor at his right hand as Prince and Savior. He did this so the people of Israel would repent of their sins and be forgiven (Acts 5:30-31 NLT).

The NT author explained: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed (1 Peter 2:24 ESV). These words reflect Isaiah 53, the account of God’s servant’s undeserved vicarious suffering for his people.

Without such salvation forgiveness there could only be one outcome - the judgement of God. We guilty sinners are in critical need of the mercy of God. The Saviour came in God’s time to bring that about. God is with us still, to set us free from the consequences of our rebellion and disobedience. The offer stands until the end of this age and the arrival of the day of Judgement - God’s Judgement, not mine, or yours. 

Appendix - Matthew's other "to fulfill" use of prophetic writings. I note the purpose clause introductions, which some English versions reproduce. 

Matthew 2:15 (NRSVUE) and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” (purpose construction)

Matthew 2:17 (CSB) Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: (*) (indicative verb)

Matthew 2:23 (CEV) and they went to live there in the town of Nazareth. So the Lord's promise came true, just as the prophet had said, “He will be called a Nazarene.”[a] (purpose clause)

Matthew 4:14 (ESV) so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: (purpose clause)

Matthew 8:17 (NIV) This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases.”[a] (purpose clause)

Matthew 12:17 (NLT) This fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah concerning him: (purpose clause)

Matthew 13:35 (NRSVUE) This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet:[a] “I will open my mouth to speak in parables; I will proclaim what has been hidden since the foundation.”[b] (purpose clause)

Matthew 21:4 (CSB) This took place so that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled:
Tell Daughter Zion, “See, your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”[a](purpose clause)

Matthew 27:9 (NRSVUE) Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price, (indicative verb)

 

May you be blessed by God

Allen Hampton

(*) to fulfill/was fulfilled. The orthographic difference between verses 15 and 17 is very small. Translators vary in how they handle the grammar - you can, for example, compare Matthew 2:15 in all English versions.

** Footnote: Matthew knew better but did not care, says a noisy critic:

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/was-there-really-a-virgin-birth-in-the-bible/

Appendix: English translations from Isaiah 7, with notes provided by publisher

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d] (NIV)

• a. Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew is plural.
  b. Isaiah 7:14 Or young woman
  c. Isaiah 7:14 Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls son, and he or son, and they
  d. Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel means God with us.

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.[a] (NRSVUE)

• a. 7.14 That is, God is with us

14 All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin[a] will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’). (NLT)

• a. 7:14 Or young woman.

14  But the Lord will still give you proof. A virgin[a] is pregnant; she will have a son and will name him Immanuel.[b]

(CEV)

• a. 7.14 virgin: Or “young woman.” 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.
• b. 7.14 Immanuel: In Hebrew “Immanuel” means “God is with us.”

Photo by Hu Chen on Unsplash

Scripture quotations marked (CEV) are from the Contemporary English Version Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1995 by American Bible Society. Used by Permission.

Scripture quotations marked (CSB) are from the Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible®, and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NRSVUE) are from New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition. Copyright © 2021 National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture passages by copy and paste, courtesy BibleGateway.com

Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay