|
BACK |
|
So far as Isaiah 7:14 is concerned, something out of the ordinary is implied by the fact that the birth was to be a sign. A birth by a young married woman in the normal course would not really be that. The fact that the child was to be called Immanuel (God with us), again implies that there will be something special about the child. If we look at Isaiah 9:6/7 the child which is then said to have been born has names given to him which could hardly have applied to anyone other than the expected Messiah, thus we have him called: "Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace". His kingdom was to be endless as verse 7 declares. In the New Testament Matthew is the only Gospel writer that quotes Isaiah 7:14. Luke gives no quotation, but the words of the angel Gabriel who spoke to Mary echo the words of Isaiah 9:7 (see Luke 1:32/33). Nothing is said about intercourse or a man being involved in connection with the child of chapter 7:14, but by way of contrast the child spoken of in Isaiah 8:1-4 is clearly stated to have been born in the normal course as a result of such intercourse. |
|
Some have argued that the child said to have been born of a virgin/young woman was Hezekiah. However, this idea has generally been abandoned because he must have been born before the prophecy was made, apart from the fact that the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6/7 cannot be applied to him, unless in a very diluted or, possibly, typical way. There is, incidentally, a sign given later on to Hezekiah himself (see Isaiah 38:4-8 and 2 Kings 20:8-11). As the sign to Ahaz points to the birth of Christ, the one given to Hezekiah - the shadow returning on the dial of Ahaz ten degrees - points to the resurrection of Christ: Hezekiah was sick unto death, but was to go up to the house of Jehovah on the third day, just as Christ was raised on the third day. |
|
It is a well known fact that creatures can be reproduced artificially from a female without the intervention of a male creature. It is called cloning. Further, although most natural reproduction involves the male and female of a species (whether animals or plants) there are in nature other methods of reproduction such as the putting out of suckers in the case of plants. In the case of animals the humble aphid (e.g. greenfly) can reproduce without any male being involved ! However, in the case of the Brahmany Blind Snake there are no males only females. As a matter of fact evolutionists have difficulty in explaining how sexual reproduction came to be anyway. It is still a problem for them. We should not therefore be sceptical when Scripture says that the Son of God was born without the intervention of a male. |
|
The birth of Christ was clearly through the instrumentality of a young woman, for no one supposes that Mary was not young when she brought forth Christ her firstborn Son, because she had a good many children later without the Holy Spirit being involved. This agrees with whatever interpretation is given to Almah in Isaiah 7:14. However, other passages show that God can not only bring about a virgin birth when He so desires, but he can also cause a woman who is past the normal age of childbearing to give birth. We have in Scripture this kind of childbearing in both the case of Sarah in the Old Testament and Elizabeth in the New. Those who are sceptical about the virgin birth of Christ would presumably also be sceptical about this kind of birth, not to mention the mass of happenings recorded in Scripture which are outside the normal course of nature, usually called miracles. |
|
When we speak of Christ being Son of God we do not mean that God in someway had sexual relations with Mary. To borrow an expression of Paul: far be the thought. God did not come in between Mary and Joseph. What this would involve is unspeakable. In fact it was God's Spirit that was involved in the birth of Christ and if we were to suppose that some kind of sexual relations were involved it would make Christ Son of the Holy Spirit rather than Son of the Father as Scripture teaches (2 John 3). In any case if such an idea were admitted it would mean that Mary was not really a virgin at all ! |
|
The truth is, the question of what actually took place in Mary's womb to enable her to give birth to Christ is probably beyond us. Suffice it to say that what took place was the result of the action of the Holy Spirit, as both Matthew and Luke state. As a matter of fact even a non-miraculous birth is still not fully understood and the statement in Ecclesiastes 11:5 "As thou knowest not ... how the the bones [grow] in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the work of God who |