The Virgin Birth
In simple trusting faith I accept the accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus as factual. There is nothing within my rational constitution which recoils from the thought that he was begotten in Mary by the Holy Spirit and born of her body in so far as the flesh was concerned. I do not find myself inclined to speculate about how this could be or how it was accomplished, nor do I feel obligated to account for the means in order to accept it. When men talk about the impossibility of accepting this intellectually, they speak of a type of intellect which I do not possess.
I see no reason for training my feeble intellectual powers to be skeptical of everything they cannot immediately grasp or fully explain. Intellect need not be opposed to faith and it is dangerous to regard it as being so. On this basis some have even come to doubt their own existence or the reality of the world in which we are placed. My faith does not preclude my intellect in that area where it operates. It is a function of that intellect making possible its outreach into unexplored vistas, and even into regions which cannot be analyzed because of human limitations. I do not hamper or cripple my intellectual powers by proceeding upon the basis of faith. Instead, I enhance them.
It is argued that the virgin birth is contrary to our scientific findings and must be rejected either because it cannot be subjected to scientific criteria, or because it contradicts all that is known as a result of the application of such criteria. Actually this is based upon a presupposition as I shall show in my next chapter, and I simply do not acknowledge the validity of that presupposition. To say that our advanced "scientific knowledge" will not allow us to accept a thing is to speak unscientifically. Science is knowledge. The word is from the Latin scientia, to know. As we employ it, the term denotes knowledge according to system, or knowledge properly classified.
Science embraces the branches of knowledge of which the subject is ultimate principles, or facts as explained by principles, or laws arranged in natural order. To talk of "scientific knowledge" is the equivalent of saying "knowledge knowledge." It is obvious that man has not exhausted the field of knowledge, or all experimentation would immediately cease. Therefore, there are areas to which knowledge does not extend. Anything within those areas, or in areas outside the realm of investigative procedures used by science, would be in the domain of imagination, speculation or faith. About such things science could only theorize.
The individual who accepts the idea of a divine being upon what appears to him to be valid evidence of the existence of such a being, and who further accepts the idea that this being has revealed his thoughts will act upon faith with regard to the matters covered in that revelation. Another who rejects either the idea of a divine Being, or a revelation, or both, will proceed upon the basis of speculation, theory or opinion in reference to such matters. This is not the same as saying that science is opposed to faith. The most that can be said is that the scientist, acting upon the basis of previously accumulated data, doubts the possibility of the virgin birth. This points up two important factors. One is the limitations of science which makes it impossible for science to dogmatically deny that which is accepted upon faith. The other is that those things which lie within the scope of the divine are not subject to the scientific experimental process. To argue against the possibility of the virgin birth is to reduce it to the domain of the natural. If supernatural power operates in such a situation it is not impossible at all. To doubt the virgin birth is really to deny the possibility of supernatural power in the universe.
The birth of Jesus has always been a problem to those who view the universe from a purely natural standpoint. Certainly the one person who would be most concerned about the virgin birth would be the virgin selected to bear the child. The one who would be most skeptical would be the man to whom she was engaged. And in the individual encounter of the divine messenger with these two we find all of the questions, but we also find the answers!
The angel first sought to quiet the fears of Mary and then said, "You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus." The natural question was, "How can this be, since I have no husband?" In her simplicity Mary was fully aware of the impossibility of pregnancy without impregnation. The answer of the angel was, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." Then came these words, "For with God nothing is impossible."
This forever placed the matter in proper perspective. The question after centuries have gone by, is still, "How can this be?" Some have denied absolutely that it could be, some have tried by devious means to supply a man in order to make it rational. One of the most frequently quoted statements in our day is that of a theologian who writes, "The birth stories, are to be sure, most improbable . . . for this reason, the simplest thing to believe may be that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus." He concludes that if this is not the case, "Jesus must have been the child of a German soldier. After all the claim develops, such is the experience of many girls near military camps."
As to Joseph, the record is quite clear. We are
told, "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, 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 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.'" Thus the two
persons most vitally concerned in the event were satisfied with the divine
explanation.
In recent times those who would deny the truth of the record of the virgin birth of Jesus, have sought to strengthen their case by affirming that many religions of the world outside of Christianity, have their traditions of a virgin birth, and the history of most primitive peoples is replete with mythical accounts of the union of gods and mortals. The implication is that the narrative contained in the new covenant scriptures also constitutes the folklore by which a simple and superstitious peasantry sought to give meaning to their belief.
There are some facts which should not be overlooked, however, by those who are concerned with arrival at truth. The first is that many of the myths contain within themselves the grounds of their own refutation. A close examination will show that a great number are not actually related to virgins at all.
One of the frequently cited cases is that of Romulus and Remus, reputed to be the sons of Mars, god of war, and Rhea Silvia, a Vestal Virgin. If these legendary twins ever existed, they were conceived in illicit intercourse, and the legend takes note of this by recounting that they were thrown into the river Tiber because of their mother's sinful alliance. To compare this with the incarnation in the gospel records appears somewhat ridiculous.
The nature of the so-called "miracle births" in mythology is enough to prove that there is nothing divine involved in them, but that they were inventions of depraved human imagination. Every form of sexual deviation is connected with them, and many of the stories reek with licentiousness, animalism, and effeminacy. Frequently they are couched in language descriptive of brutal and insensate orgies, and invest the gods with every type and kind of human debauchery.
It was characteristic of many rulers greedy of power to claim affinity with the gods and thus enhance their ability to prey upon the ignorant and superstitious masses. Apollo seems to have been a popular claimant as a sire, with Pythagoras, Plato and the Roman emperor Augustus, all alleging him as father. Alexander the Great propagated the opinion that he was begotten of a god who approached his mother in the form of a serpent, although more accurate history makes him the son of Philip of Macedon, and of Olympias, a princess of Epirus, and places his birthplace at Pella, the capital of ancient Macedonia.
It is worth noting that in all of the myths the purpose of "miraculous births" was to exalt men to the stature of gods, while in the gospel records the incarnation was to empty one of equality with God to take upon himself the form of a slave, made in the likeness of men. Before Alexander died he ordered the Greek cities to worship him as a god, but proved he was a man by dying. Jesus proved that he was a man by dying, and the Son of God by the resurrection.
It appeals to me as a matter of common sense that, in the final analysis, the validity of the scriptural account of the conception and birth of Jesus, cannot possibly be affected by recounting the "miracle birth" stories of myths and legends. One who is prejudiced against acceptance of the virgin birth may seek to find comfort for his antagonism by citing the similarities, remote in nature as they are, but this proves nothing pro or con about the factuality of the birth of Jesus. There is hardly a facet of authentic history that has not been duplicated either before or after the event, by fanciful myth.
But the historicity of an event cannot be invalidated by the citing of legendary similarities. The myths serve only to prove the scope of human imaginative powers. The science fiction writers two generations ago were producing such wild tales of the conquest of space that children were forbidden to read their far-out speculations. Now their grandchildren watch on television the launching into orbit of vehicles which make the stories of yesteryear laughable because of their simplicity.
That Jesus of Nazareth lived on earth is an established fact. The circumstances of his advent were carefully and meticulously investigated by a physician, who interrogated the eyewitnesses, and who then set down his findings and addressed them to a Greek political ruler. Many who lived in the century following the birth of Jesus accepted without question the testimony as given. That testimony is either true or false. But the truth or falsity of it can never be affected by any imaginative or speculative accounts preceding it, regardless of any apparent likeness.
No act of history or fact of testimony can ever
be proven false by the mere citation of multiplied cases known to be spurious.
Doubt may be cast upon all by association, but doubt in itself disproves
nothing. It serves to show the lack of logic upon the part of one who confuses
doubt with proof, when doubt itself exists because of lack of proof, or because
of lack of study or examination of existing proof.
At this juncture we come to the place where we must note a prophecy concerning the birth of Jesus as recorded in Isaiah 7:14. Honesty and candor in interpretation force us to study this in spite of the fact that we may differ with many scholars whom we greatly love and respect. We could simply ignore the passage and make no reference to it and thereby escape the wrath of some and the misunderstanding of others, but this appears to be unfair. We will risk any repercussion.
The King James Version reads, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The Revised Standard Version reads, "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel." This version has a footnote reading, "or virgin."
I concur with the Revised Standard Version rendering. This is not because I do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but because I do. I believe that the birth of Jesus was absolutely unique. He was the only person in the history of the world who was born of a virgin.
To me, it seems quite clear that the prophecy of Isaiah has a two-fold application, as is true of so many old covenant prophecies. It has both a primary and a secondary application. The primary application was to be immediate. It was to happen shortly after the utterance of the prophecy. The secondary application was remote and in the future. It was to take place after many centuries had passed.
To shorten our approach to the matter, let me state that I believe that the son to whom direct reference was made was Isaiah's own son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz. He was not born of a virgin. The secondary application was to Jesus. He was unquestionably born of a virgin. We only ask for an impartial and unbiased examination of the scriptures directly related to both births. We crave your patience while we first investigate with you the information furnished in chapters 7 and 8 of Isaiah. If nothing else is accomplished we will share in a good lesson in Bible history.
The contextual background for this lesson goes back several hundreds of years prior to the time of Isaiah. The people of God had divided into two kingdoms during the reign of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon in 975 B. C. Ten tribes revolted and set up the kingdom of Israel, later establishing their capital at Samaria. Since this was in the tribal inheritance of Ephraim the kingdom was frequently referred to as Ephraim. The remaining two tribes of Judah and Benjamin maintained their capital at Jerusalem. Their kings continued in an unbroken line from David of the tribe of Judah.
In 759 B. C. Pekahiah was completing a two year reign over Israel in Samaria. One of his captains, Pekah the son of Remaliah, conspired against him with a band of more than fifty men from Gilead, and assassinated him in the royal palace, and after this military coup Pekah installed himself as king.
In the seventeenth year of the reign of Pekah, in 742 B. C., Jotham the king of Judah died and was succeeded by his twenty-year old son Ahaz. Isaiah was living at the time and was active as a prophet in Jerusalem. The kingdom of Syria, which joined Israel on the north, with its capital at Damascus, was governed by Rezin.
As soon as the young Ahaz came to the throne of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the king of Israel, entered into a plot to besiege Jerusalem and destroy the dynasty of David and install a foreigner, the son of Tabeal, in place of Ahaz. They reckoned without the fact that God had made a covenant with David that he would never lack a descendant to sit upon his throne. But as soon as the news reached the palace in Jerusalem that the kings of Israel and Syria were preparing to march against the city, Ahaz and his advisors were so frightened that they literally quaked.
At this time Isaiah had one son, whose name was Shear-jashub. God told Isaiah to take his son and go up to meet Ahaz and reassure him. The very name of his son was a sign of God's protective care, and that name had been purposely given. It meant, "The remnant shall return." Shear-jashub had been so named to comfort Judah with the thought that they would not be exterminated.
Ahaz was inspecting the water supply of Jerusalem, probably in preparation for an anticipated siege, and Isaiah and his son met the king at the conduit of the upper pool along the Fuller's Field highway. Isaiah informed Ahaz that he should remain calm and not be scared of "the two tails of these smoking fire-brands." This designation of Rezin and Pekah indicated that they were but two flaming sticks and that God could easily extinguish them. Isaiah pointed out that they would not succeed in overthrowing Ahaz because he was protected by the promise to David and God had revealed concerning the prophecy, "It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass."
The prophet went on to predict that Damascus and Syria would be rendered helpless and that within a period of sixty-five years the ten tribe kingdom would be destroyed until it could no longer even be counted as a people. Apparently the young king was too frightened to trust in this prediction, because Isaiah said, "Do you not believe? It is because you are not stable," that is established in and trusting the promises of God. In order to produce faith God requested Ahaz to ask for a sign that Isaiah was indeed conveying a divine message.
Isaiah said to the king, "Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven." This simply meant that Ahaz was free to request any phenomenon which could be demonstrated in the created universe. He could ask for divine assurance through any kind of a sign which would indicate God's faithfulness to His covenant promises.
But Ahaz, who had been worshiping heathen gods and burning incense unto them in the high places, suddenly turned very devout and replied, "I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test." And the prophet said, "Hear then, O house of David. Is it too little for you to weary men, that you worry my God also?" Ahaz had refused to listen to the counsel of Isaiah and his son, and now he stubbornly refused to ask a sign of God to confirm the promise that the king of Syria and the king of Israel would be destroyed and the theocracy would continue to govern through the house of David.
Then the prophet uttered the prediction with which we are especially concerned. "Even though you refuse to ask for a sign, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel . . . For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted."
I submit that this sign to Ahaz that God will destroy the two kings who were a threat to Jerusalem is as plain as language can make it. A young woman would conceive a son who was to be a sign to Ahaz and Judah, and before that child reached the age of accountability the enemy lands were to be divested of their kings. In spite of the plainness of the passage many have been so conditioned by their previous teaching that they will not be able to see it without meticulous explanation. We ask the indulgence of our readers as we make a detailed exegesis.
1. This sign was given to Ahaz at a time of apparent crisis. It was to prove to him that God would not allow the seed of David to be displaced or replaced by a usurper, like the son of Tabeal. The sign was given to Ahaz for it was he who refused to request a sign. It had to be something that he could see in his day, else it would not have been a sign to him as promised.
2. A young woman would conceive and bear a son who would be a sign to God's people that God was with Judah and Jerusalem and that the conspirators against them would not succeed. His name was to be called Immanuel, which means "God with us," that is with the house of David, as opposed to Israel and Syria. This was in accord with the promise which God made to David, "I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom . . . I will be his father, and he shall be my son . . . I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever and his throne will be established forever." What was to happen to the conspirators within the period of infancy of one child would be proof that God was not slack concerning his promise!
3. Concerning the child it was said, "He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good." Curds and honey were eaten in time of peace and plenty. God spoke of Canaan as a land that flowed with curds and honey when he wanted to illustrate the wealth and productivity of it. But at the time Isaiah made this prediction Rezin and Pekah were marching toward Jerusalem to lay siege to the city. Ahaz was frightened at the thought of the coming calamity, but the prophet declares that instead of privation, starvation and hardship, a child conceived at that time would eat the very best of foods by the time he reached the age of accountability.
Nothing could be more indicative of the coming failure of Rezin and Pekah than to predict that the inhabitants of Jerusalem would be feasting on the richest diet in the next several years in spite of their attempted siege.
4. Ahaz was informed that before the time when the son borne by the young woman was at the age of discretion, "the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted." A child conceived in 742 B. C. would not be born until nine months later, or about 741. In 2 Kings 16:5 we learn that the siege against Jerusalem in 742 B. C. was unsuccessful. In 740 B. C. (when the child would be about a year old, Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria captured Damascus, carried the people into exile and killed Rezin. The next year, 739 B. C., Hoshea made a conspiracy against Pekah and killed him in Samaria. At this time the child would be about two years old. The two smoking tails of firebrands were to be extinguished before the child was able to choose the good and refuse the evil.
Even before Pekah died Tiglath-pileser swooped down upon Israel and carried away the inhabitants of a great part of it including Gilead, Galilee and Naphtali. You may read of this in 2 Kings 15:29. The two kings were gone and the land deserted before the child was much more than two years old.
5. We must remember that Isaiah also predicted
the breaking of Ephraim so the kingdom could no longer be called a people.
After Hoshea assassinated Pekah he reigned six years before Shalmaneser,
then king of Assyria, tired of his rebellion against the imposed tribute,
came up and laid siege to Samaria. The siege lasted three years until 721
B. C. when the city fell and Israel was carried into exile because of their
idolatry.
Now we come to the most interesting part of our narrative--the identity of the young woman and the son who was given as a sign to Ahaz and Judah. We believe that the context shows that the young woman was the prophetess, that is, the wife of Isaiah and that the son whom she conceived and bore as a sign was Maher-shalal-hash-baz, the second son of Isaiah.
In order to guarantee that this sign would be understood by future generations as well as the one then in existence, Isaiah was instructed to take a scroll and write in it, using common letters that could be understood by all, "Testimony concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz." This name means "The spoil speeds; the prey hastes" (Isaiah 8:1). The indication was that God would speedily spoil the conspirators and haste to make them a prey to divine vengeance.
After penning this testimony Isaiah called two witnesses to attest it with their signatures, so it could be proven in the mouth of these two that the testimony was written before the child was conceived. After the testimony was duly certified Isaiah went in unto the prophetess, his wife, and she conceived and bore a son, exactly as it had been foretold to Ahaz. When the child arrived the Lord told Isaiah to call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "for before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." We have already learned that the child was not over a year old when Tiglath-pileser despoiled both territories.
But what about the name Immanuel? It was distinctly said that the young woman who conceived and bore the child shall call his name "Immanuel." The answer lies in the fact that this was a prophetic term used because of its meaning. The literal name of the child was Maher-shalal-hash-baz, but he was called "Immanuel" because his birth was a sign that God was with Judah and the house of David. Later the same could be said about Jesus. Although he was referred to as "Immanuel" his literal name was Jesus, but his advent signified that God was with mankind in a new and unique way.
Let us see if this can be substantiated with reference to the first child. It is significant that the word "Immanuel" occurs in the King James Version only twice as a proper name. Once is in Isaiah 7:14 where the name was to be given to the son borne by the young woman, and the other is in the same context, in Isaiah 8:8, in the chapter dealing with the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. But it also occurs in the same chapter in its translated form. The first occurrence (8:8) is one of the most interesting in the word of God.
In 8:5 the Lord tells Isaiah that the people of Israel had refused the waters of Siloam that flowed gently and rejoiced in Rezin and Pekah, who were firebrands and revolutionaries. Siloam was a small stream and pool which helped Jerusalem to survive by furnishing water for the inhabitants. But the people of the northern kingdom had turned away from the city where God had written His name and now placed their trust in men.
"Now therefore, behold the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria and all his glory." The waters of the Euphrates were wide and turbulent, and unlike the water of Siloam. Since the ten tribes had shown a preference for such turbulence God promised them that he would send the fierce nation from the region of the Euphrates and the army would be like a river at flood stage. "He shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks, and he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even unto the neck."
All of this came to pass and the armies of the Assyrians inundated the land of Syria and the land of Israel, and flowed over into the land of Judah. There they were halted by the direct action of God and returned to their banks. The land of Judah is referred to as that of Immanuel in verse 8. God was with Judah but he was not with her attackers.
In verses 9 and 10 the conspiring nations are challenged to associate together, far countries are urged and challenged to gird for battle, and all are told to counsel together, but still it would come to nought. "Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear all of ye far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces. Take counsel and it shall not stand: for God is with us (Immanuel)." This coincides with the promise to Ahaz about the conspiracy, "Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass" (7:7).
What did Isaiah do with the scroll, or testimony which he had written? He was told to "Bind up the testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples" (8:16). This meant that in the presence of those who had been taught concerning God's purpose as demonstrated in the son born to the young woman, he was to roll up the evidence which had been signed by Uriah and Zechariah, and he was to place a seal upon it.
Isaiah then declared, "Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts who dwells on Mount Zion" (8:18). The children whom God had given Isaiah were Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz. When Isaiah was sent to reassure the frightened Ahaz he was told to take his first son with him. The very name of this lad should have strengthened the king, but when he doubted, another son was promised who would be a definite sign from the Lord. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you (Ahaz) a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and his very name will mean that God is with us."
God promised a son as a sign to Ahaz and Judah. After Isaiah had carefully inscribed a roll with this information he went in unto his wife and she conceived and bore a son. Isaiah then positively declared that he and the children which God gave him were signs and portents in Israel. We fail to see how it could be made any plainer that the son of the prophet was the sign given to Ahaz and Jerusalem.
What purpose was to be achieved by preservation of the sealed and attested witness concerning the son who had been promised and the destruction of Syria and Samaria before the child came to the age of discretion? The answer is plainly given. It was to be a constant reminder in time of national danger to rely upon the Lord instead of upon other advisers and counsellors. The common tendency of people when rumors of attack were rife was to consult spirit mediums or necromancers and seek to learn from the spirit world what was going to happen. Instead, Israel was to turn to the sealed teaching and testimony as a sign that God would not desert Judah.
"And when they say to you, `Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter,' should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! If they do not speak in harmony with this message it is because they are unenlightened" (Isaiah 8:19, 20). The context plainly shows that the teaching and testimony consisted of the scroll relating to the birth of the second son of Isaiah.
We do not believe that the young woman who conceived and bore the son who was to be a sign to Ahaz was a virgin. She was the wife of the prophet and had already borne one son, Shear-jashub, who was a sign and portent to the house of Jacob.
A great many students have been betrayed, by their zeal to defend the virgin birth of Jesus, into adopting an interpretation which will make for two virgin births, and thus destroy the uniqueness of the birth of Jesus. All of these overlook one prime factor. In the case of Jesus, the nature of the birth was essential to establishing his deity and thus of fulfilling God's purpose.
But in the case of the sign given to reassure Ahaz, the nature of the birth had little to do with the reason. The question concerned the time element involved in destroying two kings who were plotting to overthrow Ahaz and set up a usurper in Jerusalem. The sign was not how a child was to be conceived and born, but the fact that a child conceived at that time would eat the bread of peace and prosperity rather than the scraps of siege and famine, and that by the time the child would attain the age of discretion the hated land would be forsaken of both her kings.
In the sign which God promised directly to Ahaz miraculous conception and a virgin birth were not requisite to the divine purpose at all. The manner of conception was not the issue but the swift and speedy vengeance of God upon cruel conspirators before a child grew out of its infancy.
I am firm in my conviction that Jesus was born of a virgin and was the only person in all human history to be so born. There were not two virgin births, one in the days of Ahaz and another in the days of Herod the Great. I would believe in the virgin birth of Jesus if Isaiah had never lived or written. Unfortunately, a great many who are so influenced by tradition and emotion that they have not taken the time or trouble to investigate in depth, rush to the defence of the language of a prophetic statement and hinge their whole theory of inspiration upon a single English word used to translate a Hebrew original. It is thought that this is being true to God in defence of the virgin birth.
In reality this is probably an exhibition of lack of faith. To chain God to a translation in the days of Isaiah and deny that He has a right to make another application of His language or to infuse the body of prophecy with a secondary and greater application does not commend itself to me personally as being a demonstration of faith in either the power of God or the wisdom of God.
I happen to believe that the same Spirit which spoke through Isaiah also spoke through Matthew and Luke. I do not doubt the ability of God nor question His right to take any message that He has ever delivered and invest it with new meaning to accomplish His purpose. It can be proven beyond doubt that this procedure was actually followed with most of the prophecies which came to be applied to Jesus. Many of these had an original and limited application, but were given a new and broader application when referred to Jesus. We cannot refer to all of them but we will suggest a few.
1. Matthew says that Joseph, Mary and Jesus, remained in Egypt until the death of Herod that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, "Out of Egypt have I called my son" (Matthew 2:15). This is a quotation from Hosea 11:1 which directly related to the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. No one who read this prophecy in the days of Hosea would ever dream that it was even remotely related to bringing Jesus back into the land of Palestine to reside in Nazareth. We would never have made this secondary application without the explanation as given by Matthew.
2. When Herod sent and slew the children in Bethlehem, Matthew writes, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not" (Matthew 2:17, 18). Actually, Jeremiah originally had no reference to the slaughter of the innocents.
Ramah was the headquarters in Palestine for the king of Babylon. There he assembled the exiles for deportation to a foreign land beyond the Euphrates. The lamentation and bitter weeping of these displaced persons reminded the prophet of the sorrow of Rachel who died in childbirth and was buried along the road near Bethlehem, after giving birth to her second son whom she called Benoni, "son of my sorrow." When the children were slain at Bethlehem the wails were so loud it was as if they could be heard in Ramah, and as if Rachel were once again screaming in anguish for her loved ones.
3. Again Matthew declares that Jesus lived in a city called Nazareth, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." Of course this expression is not found in our old covenant scriptures, although Matthew says it was spoken by the prophets (plural). The word Nazareth is from the same Hebrew root as the word for "branch" and the allusion here is to the words of Isaiah (11:1); Jeremiah (23:5); and Zechariah (3:8), etc.
4. When David prepared to build the temple and was restrained from doing so by Nathan, he was told that God would raise up his seed, and "he shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son" (1 Chronicles 17:12, 13). David summoned Solomon and directly applied this prediction unto him (1 Chronicles 22:9, 10). Yet Peter said on Pentecost, "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, he seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption" (Acts 2:30, 31).
5. Of just as much interest is an application made in Hebrews 2:13 of the words of Isaiah about his sons, Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Isaiah said, "Behold I and the children which God hath given me are for signs and portents." The writer of the Hebrew letter drops the latter part of the sentence and makes the remainder applicable to Jesus and the saints. "Behold I and the children which God hath given me."
The higher critic will point to these places as indications of the arbitrary manipulation of scripture in order to justify a theory or bolster a supposition. But it must not be forgotten that the critics also frequently have a presupposition which they seek to establish and they are not above assigning motives to Biblical writers without proper grounds for so doing.
To one who believes in divine prescience and recognizes the right of Cod to interpret revelation, as I do, no problem is presented at all. The simplest statement may have a deeper meaning than man could ever imagine and God can reveal that deeper meaning as well as the original message. I refuse to limit the meaning God attaches to a statement by my understanding of it.
The real problem with the virgin birth has never been the virgin birth at all. Rather it has to do with the nature of the God in whom one believes. If one recognizes God as omnipotent and omniscient as I do, the virgin birth presents no difficulties. Nothing is impossible to the God whom I serve. As the author of all life and the ruler of all nature he can bring human life into existence by any means commensurate with his purpose. I believe that he has done so by four different means: direct creation from elements previously created; from a part removed from a human body by divine surgery; by natural reproduction; and by impregnation of a human ovum through agency of the Holy Spirit. I think that a great many in our day who rebel against the thought of the virgin birth because of what they term "the intellectual barrier," do not stop to analyze the relationship of their doubt to either the antecedents or consequences. The only way by which a divine personage could enter the realm of humanity and actually partake of human flesh would be by a miracle. If the fulness of deity was to dwell bodily in Jesus he could not be simply a product of a natural procreative process. If he had both a human father and a human mother he was no more the Son of God than any other person. The divine Sonship is clearly predicated upon divine begetting. "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Almighty will overshadow you, therefore the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).
It will be obvious, I think, that the views which we have expressed indicate that as respects the virgin birth, at least, we concur with the rendering of the Revised Standard Version. Because of the prominence of the attacks made upon this particular version on the very point at issue in this thesis, there needs to be some clarification.
I have no favorite version. I use a great many of them, and one of my favorite methods of study is to open up a number of versions to the same passage and examine them all. I am not at all interested in defending one version against another but I am solely concerned with an unprejudiced attempt to arrive at the truth revealed by God. There are some weak spots apparent in all of the translations which it is hoped may be corrected in future attempts at revision.
We believe that the context of Isaiah 7:14, coupled with the announced purpose of the sign to Ahaz favors the rendering "a young woman." We believed that way before the Revised Standard Version was published. We honor the translators for the footnote reading, "Or virgin." No doubt this was added because, in spite of the context, it must be admitted that the Hebrew almah, used seven times in the scriptures, generally implies a virgin.
Too, the Septuagint Version with which the translators were quite familiar, used the Greek word parthenos in Isaiah 7:14. But it is significant that in every instance in the new covenant scriptures where the birth of Christ is unmistakably under consideration, the Revised Standard Version is true to the idea of a virgin birth.
"When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18).
"All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (Matthew 1:22, 23).
"When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus" (Matthew 1:24).
"In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary" (Luke 1:26, 27).
With these plain quotations before us, for one to affirm that the Revised Standard Version denies the virgin birth is a demonstration of rather audacious ignorance or of a wilful intent to deceive. Surely those who make such claims must rely upon the hope that those who listen to them will never read for themselves. And they may be right!
While I am not a particular defender of this version of the scriptures as opposed to others I must confess that I have never found it in any sense prejudiced against the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Instead, it upholds that teaching without doubt or quibble. I agree with its translation, both in the original prophecy and in the application as made to Jesus.
The direct connection between the prophecy of Isaiah and the birth of Jesus is easily understandable. Isaiah was to give a sign to Ahaz in a time of crisis that God was with the family of David and would not permit his kingly covenant to be abrogated by the designs of men. Jesus was the natural inheritor of David's throne and was destined to sit upon it as an heir of David, so a prophecy related to the preservation of that throne was applicable to Jesus who was proof from heaven that God was with us.
I have read a great many books by those who would cast doubt on the possibility of the virgin birth. I have earnestly sought to understand their position and motivation. But each time I have returned and read the scriptural account once more, and the more I read it the more steadfast does my faith become. I accept the virgin birth of Jesus as a fact and reality and it is very precious unto me. I am grateful that when He decided to visit us and share our lot that He passed through every phase of our personal experience, embryonic, foetal, and otherwise. I am thrilled that, as a babe, he entered the world as I entered it, gasping for that first precious breath of air that spelled life on our planet.
And I am pleased that he was a firstborn son and that his tiny body caught up in the convulsions and throes of the expulsion process called delivery, paved the way for the sons and daughters of Joseph who followed. I accept the truth that the mother who bore him knew the ecstasy of divine union before she experienced the paroxysm of physical and sensual orgasm. I acknowledge the validity of the virgin birth and I believe in the one who entered our sinful world through this medium. To me he is the Son of God, and my blessed Savior. I love him with simple, trusting faith!