The special jewish perspective of matthew. the first nativity. part ii. chapter 2.

50

I. The Special Jewish Perspective of
Matthew : Matthew 1:18-25.

Matthew and Luke tell us that Joseph was betrothed to Mary when she
conceived Jesus. By the custom of those days a betrothal was a significantly
more sacred bond than an engagement is today. A couple might be betrothed
from childhood, and this bond was legally as strong as marriage except that
they lived apart and had no conjugal relations, and the woman’s family was
still responsible for her care and support. Marriage was the final seal upon the
bond, after which the couple lived together and the husband had full
responsibility for his wife. If a betrothal were to be dissolved, however, the
procedure was equivalent to a formal legal divorce. When Mary was found
pregnant, she was betrothed but not married to Joseph. In the eyes of the
community, if Joseph were the father, they had both commited a serious sin
and an unforgivable social and moral transgression. At best they would live in
shame and lose all honor in the community. It would be better for them to
leave and find a home elsewhere. This kind of uprooting would have been
considered nothing less than disastrous in a culture that placed such a high
value on one’s home community. On the other hand, if Joseph were not the
father, by law he had the right to have Mary either stoned or cast out of the
community. Such casting out of a young unwed mother would have been
tantamount to a death sentence. She probably would not have been able to
survive on her own, and few people would have helped a woman in disgrace.
In either case, Joseph’s honor in the community was severly tarnished. He
would have been scorned as an immoral man, or laughed at as a cuckcold.
A sign of his great compassion was his unwillingness to have Mary
either executed or banished, which a more vengeful man would certainly have
done. Instead, he arranged to divorce her formally, after which she could still
live with her family, albeit in shame for the rest of her life. After the dream, in
which the angel confirmed what Mary undoubtably had told him, that the
child was conceived by the Holy Spirit, Joseph accepted her in spite of what
this would do to his reputation in the community. Small towns and their
gossips are not forgiving, and Joseph and Mary would have to live with the
whispering for the rest of their lives. This may have been a factor in the refusal
of the people of Nazareth to believe Jesus’ teachings. . . .1

51

One fact deserves to be borne constantly in mind in the whole
discussion—the fact, namely, that Jewish Christianity was not confined to the
schismatic Jewish Christians included in lists of heresies. It has been shown
above that even of the heretical Jewish Christians mentioned by Origen and
others some accepted the virgin birth. But this whole discussion has left out of
account the great numbers of Jewish Christians who in all probability simply
became merged in the Catholic Church. And everything points to the
hypothesis that these, and not the schismatics of whatever opinion, were in
possession of the most primitive historical tradition with regard the life of
Jesus. The results of the foregoing investigation of the second-century
testimony to the virgin birth may be summed up in two propositions:

1. A firm and well-formulated belief in the virgin birth extends back
to the early years of the second century.
2. The denials of the virgin birth which appear in that century were
based upon philosophical or dogmatic prepossession, much more
probably than upon genuine historical tradition.2

52

Jesus’ story is unique, and thus its beginning had to be unique. This is not a

philosophical principle or theological abstraction, but a requirement of real history. If the

affirmation of John 1:14 is to be taken as a sane and normal statement about God’s entrance into

our world, then we have to acknowledge that Jesus the Messiah’s coming into Judea in era of the

Pax Romana was and is an absolutely incredible event. But its setting in the life of the Jewish

people and the kernel events in Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Egypt are real and graphically

illustratable space and time happenings. These matters are not spiritualized allegories or

mystical feelings in the minds of gullible ancient people; these are empirical and plain facts in

bright sunlight of Judea and things that transpired in the dark cool nights in Galilee and in the

tiny hamlet six miles southeast of Jerusalem ca. 6 – 5 B.C. A few years ago, F.F. Bruce stated this

case with amazing panache:

. . . . But the argument [e.g., that history does not matter – JR] can be applied to the
New Testament only if we ignore the real essence of Christianity. For the Christian
gospel is not primarily a code of ethics or a metaphysical system; it is first and foremost
good news, and as such it was proclaimed by its earliest preachers. True, they called
Christianity ‘The Way’ and ‘The Life’; but Christianity as a way of life depends upon the
acceptance of Christianity as good news. And this good news is intimately bound up
with the historical order, for it tells how for the world’s redemption God entered into
history, the eternal came into time, the kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in
the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. The
first recorded words of our Lord’s recorded words of our Lord’s public preaching in
Galilee are: ‘ The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near; repent and
believe the good news. ’3 That Christianity has its roots in history is emphasized in the
Church’s earliest creeds, which fix the supreme revelation of God at a particular point in
time, when ‘ Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord . . . suffered under Pontius Pilate ’. This
historical ‘once-for-all-ness’ of Christianity, which distinguishes it from those religious
and philosophical systems which are not specifically related to any particular time,
makes the reliability of the writings which purport to record this revelation a question of
first-rate importance.4

53

A. The Engaged Couple and Jewish Customs : Mary & Joseph

We begin with the human situation of Joseph and Mary in little town of Nazareth in

Galilee. Not unlike many American small towns two millennia later, it was home to red-

blooded Jews, who were intensely nationalistic and given to traditional patterns of life which

were instinctive and grounded in the experience of many centuries of the training of the Old

Testament. Alfred Edersheim states that the people there were “ also with the petty jealousies

of such places, and with all the ceremonialism and punctilious self-assertion of Orientals. The

cast of Judaism in Nazareth would, of course, be the same as in Galilee generally.” 5 However,

the people of Nazareth would not necessarily follow the rabbinic observances of the Judeans

and there was a greater simplicity and freedom from certain practices thought necessary in

more sophisticated urban settings like Jerusalem. Yet, much like the country life of American

small towns today in the Midwest or the South, ancient Galileans had a purer home life and

married relationships were conducted with customary family privacy and moral propriety.

There was both less regard for formality and also desire to keep the wedding celebration chaste

and simple; thus the institutions of the groomsmen (or “friends of the bridegroom”, John 3:29)

with its tendency toward coarse male behavior, was highly discouraged. Edersheim adds :

“The bride was chosen, not as in Judea, where money was too often the motive, but as in

Jerusalem, with chief regard to ‘a fair degree;’ and the widows were (as in Jerusalem) more

tenderly cared for, as we gather from the fact, that they had a life-right of residence in their

husband’s house. ”6 The learned Dr. Edersheim, himself a Christian Jew, explains further about

the betrothal process and the unique situation of Mary and Joseph :

Such a home was that to which Joseph was about to bring the maiden, to whom he
had been betrothed. Whatever view may be taken of the geneaologies in the Gospels
according to St. Matthew and St. Luke – whether they be regarded as those of Joseph and
of Mary, or, which seems the more likely, as those of Joseph only, marking his natural
and his legal descent from David, or vice versa – there can be no question, that both
Joseph and Mary were of the royal lineage of David. Most probably, the two were nearly
related, while Mary could also claim kinship with the Priesthood, being no doubt on her
mother’s side, a ‘blood – relative’ of Elisabeth, the Priest-wife of Zacharias (Luke 1:36).
Even this seems to imply, that Mary’s family must shortly before have held higher rank,

54

for only with such did custom sanction any alliance on the part of Priests. But at the time
of their betrothal, alike Joseph and Mary were extremely poor, as appears – not indeed
from his being a carpenter, since a trade was regarded as almost a religious duty – but
from the offering at the presentation of Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:24). Accordingly,
their betrothal must have been the simplest, and the dowry settled the smallest possible.
Whichever of the two modes of betrothal may have been adopted: in the presence of
witnesses – either by solemn word of mouth, in due prescribed formality, with the added
pledge of a piece of money, however small, or of money’s worth for use; or else by
writing (the so-called Shitre Erusin) – there would be no sumptous feast to follow; and the
ceremony would conclude with some such benediction as that afterwards in use: ‘
Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the World, Who hath sanctified us by His
Commandments, and enjoined us about incest, and forbidden the betrothed, but allowed
us those wedded by Chuppah (the marriage–baldachino) and betrothal. Blessed are Thou,
Who sanctifiest Israel by Chuppah and betrothal’ – the whole being perhaps concluded
by a benediction over the statutory cup of wine, which was tasted in turn by the
betrothed. From that moment Mary was the betrothed wife of Joseph; their relationship
as sacred, as if they had already been wedded. Any breach of it would be treated as
adultery; nor could the band be dissolved except, as after marriage, by regular divorce.
Yet months might intervence between the betrothal and marriage. 7

We must not think of the ancient Jewish betrothal in terms of our modern dating and

engagement practices. Both engagement and marriage in the ancient world of the Bible had

more seriousness and permanence. And the customs and laws of Israel protected the family as

the primary unit of society as marriage and children were not just a matter of personal

convenience, but were a matter of tribal and national survival. Most importantly, for the

believing Jew, God had established this institution in the very beginning of history and

protected it with His holy commandments. The main word for “betroth” (i.e., the verb) and

“betrothed” in the Old Testament is used only about a eleven times (there is another Old

Testament word, but it is only used in marital sense 2 or 3 times). The Hebrew word

used is , ‘aras and it is found in Exodus 22:16; Deuteronomy 22:23,25,27,28; 28:30; 2

Samuel 3:14 and Hosea 2:19 (2X) and 2:20.8 When we get to the Greek New Testament,

the word for “espousal” or “betrothal” is νηστεύω. It is only used three times in the New

Testament: Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:27, and 2:5. One other word used in the original Greek of the

New Testament for “to espouse” or “to betroth” is ἁρ όζω is found in 2 Corinthians 11:2. This

is a special word and it definitely has a Hebrew and Old Testament background.9

55

Now one should consider the linguistic facts in the context of the cultural and social

expectations of that day. The Holman Bible Dictionary observes:

Old Testament: The biblical terms, betrothal and espousal, are almost synonymous with
marriage, and as binding. Betrothal and marriage comprised a moral and spiritual
principle for the home and society. The penalty under the law of Moses for disrupting
this principle by adultery, rape, fornication, or incest was death by stoning (Deut. 22:23-
30). Later under some circumstances the Jewish legal system allowed divorce. The
forgiving love and grace of God for his adulterous people is demonstrated by Hosea
buying back his adulterous wife and restoring her to his home and protection (Hos. 2:19-
20). This means that forgiveness takes precedence over stoning or divorce.
New Testament: Mary and Joseph were betrothed but did not live together until their
wedding. When Mary came to be with child during betrothal, Joseph decided to quietly
divorce her. In a dream from God, the apparent unfaithfulness of Mary was explained to
Joseph as a miracle of the Holy Spirit. This miracle gave emphasis to the unique human
and divine nature of Jesus Christ. Paul used the betrothal concept to explain the ideal
relationship that exists between the church as a chaste virgin being presented to Christ (2
Cor. 11:2).10

Unlike our modern and post-modern social culture with its loose view of marriage as a

legal contract to justify sexual cohabitation and as a means to allow “domestic partners” to

collect government or medical benefits, ancient Judaism saw the marriage relationship in sacred

and permanent terms. Indeed, as the majority of serious scholars acknowledge, the heart of the

Hebrew concept of marriage was the notion of a holy covenant. Thus, it was not only a legally

binding agreement, it was a spiritual pledge with both physical and social obligations (Cf.

Proverbs 2:17). Since Yahweh himself served as a witness to the marriage covenant (and

originated it, Genesis 2:24-25), He promised blessing on its faithful preservation but attached

hatefulness to its betrayal (Malachi 2:14-16). Since the LORD and His Spirit intimately enter into

this sacred pledge, this kind of union between man and woman is not a mere social convenience

but a spiritual bond created in the name of God. Jesus later taught that this meant that a

married couple “ [they] are not longer two, but one ”(Matthew 19:6). Thus, according to

Scripture, marriage has three Divine purposes: (1) true and godly companionship (Genesis 2:18;

Proverbs 18:22), (2) the production and nurturing of godly offspring (Malachi 2:15; I Corinthians

7:14), (3) the fulfillment of God’s calling upon an individual man or woman’s life as a deputy of

God’s creation (Genesis 1:28). Unlike the narcisstically selfish and physically trivialized view of

56

sex in modern American culture, the Biblical perspective on sex is relational and socially

sanctifying.

Marriage and divorce in ancient Israel was guided by these principles. The NIV

Archaeological Study Bible has an excellent summary of these things:

It was customary in ancient Israel for parents to arrange a marriage (Ge 24:47-53; 38:6; I
Sa 18:17) although marrying for love was not uncommon (Jdg 14:2). Arranged marriages
highlight the nature of the marriage covenant as a commitment intended to outlast youthful
infatuation. The declaration at the first marriage “ This is now bone of my bones and flesh of
my flesh ” (Ge 2:23), is a kinship formula (Ge 29:14; 2 Sa 5:1; 19:12-13). Marriage binds
husband and wife together into an entity greater than either partner as an individual and it
does so in order to assure continuity of the family lineage. Marriage within the kinship group
was encouraged so as not to alienate family land holdings (Ge 24:4; Nu 36:6-9), and in the
event that a woman’s husand died and left her childless the law provided for the husband’s
brother to act as a levirate in order to raise up offspring for the deceased (Ge 38:8; Dt. 25:5-6).
An engagement period preceded the wedding celebration and the consummation of the
marriage union. The pledge of engagement was regarded as being as binding as the marriage
itself and a betrothed woman was considered legally married (Dt 22:23-29). The engagement
was concluded with a payment of a bride-price to a woman’s faither (Ge 29:18; Jdg 1:12). This
may be understood as a compensation given to the family for the loss of their daughter. The
father enjoyed its usage temporarily, but the money reverted to the daughter at the father’s
death or in the event she were widowed. In addition gifts were given to the bride and her
family at the acceptance of the marriage proposal (Ge 24:53). Thus marriage and its
attendment economic investment brought the bride and groom’s families into legal
relationship with one another (Ge 31:50).
Israelite law included a provision for divorce – initiated by the husband only. Marriages
were dissolved contractually with a certificate of divorce (Deut 24:1). This divorce document
most likely recorded a formula of repudiation declared orally before witnesses: “ She is not
my wife, and I am not her husband (Hos 2:2). The declaration might have been accompanied
by a sign the act of removing a woman’s outer garment as an annulment of the promise made
at the time of the wedding to protect and provide for her (Ru 3:9; Eze 16:8 37; Hos 2:3, 9). A
man was not permitted to divorce his wife if he had forcefully violated here while she was
yet unbetrothed (Dt. 22:28-29) or if he had falsely accused her of nonvirginal status at the
time they had wed (Dt. 22:13 – 19).11

Thus, taking Matthew 1:18 as our starting point as our historical and literary point of

departure, we are at once confronted with the absolute distinctiveness of Jesus’ human origin.

It is perfectly clear that there were to be no sexual relations during a Jewish betrothal period.

Furthermore v. 20 plainly states that while Joseph and Mary were legally covenanted to each

other, they had not yet been living together in the same house as husband and wife. Once again

this precisely accords with Deuteronomy 22:24 where a betrothed woman is called a man’s wife

57

even though the preceding verse calls such a woman “ a virgin pledged to be married .” For

Torah-observant Jews sexual unfaithfulness during this betrothal period would have been

nothing less than adultery which could be punishable by death through stoning (Cf. Leviticus

20:10; Deuteronomy 22:23-24). From the Nativity pericope (vv. 19-20) we see Joseph, a godly and

compassionate groom, planned to have a private divorce. This would allow him to maintain his

personal righteousness while still saving young Mary from certain public disgrace and possible

death. From the standpoint of human reason and custom, it was a weak win-win response to an

otherwise lose-lose situation.

B. Matthew’s Geneaology of Christ and Special Emphases

The first distinctive or special emphasis of Matthew’s Nativity account is his unique

geneaology in the first seventeen verses of his opening chapter. Matthew deliberately and

formally links the life of Jesus to the life of King David and of the prime Hebrew patriarch

Abraham (v.1). Every Jew would faithfully read the Hebrew Bible knew that God had

promised Abraham a “seed” to bless the nations and that He further specified that from the

line of David the Messiah (“the Anointed One”) would come. Accordingly, he concludes in

verse 17: “ So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David

until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until

the Christ are fourteen generations” (NKJV). The reader will notice please, that Matthew

desires unequivocally to identify Jesus, the son of Mary and the legal (adopted son) of Joseph

(v.16) with “the Christ.”

Yet, there is a subtle change in the pattern when Matthew reaches the line describing

Joseph. Unlike all the previous individuals in Jesus’ geneaology Joseph is not listed as “the

father of” anybody; rather, he is called “ the husband of Mary.” From Matthew’s narrative

which immediately follows (as with Luke’s account later), we are told explicitly that Jesus was

born from Mary, but not from Joseph. This is why Joseph, the desperate and perplexed

bridegroom portrayed in the later verses, having discovered his betrothed was pregnant,

wanted to act quickly and discretely to deal with an incredible personal crisis. But God directly

58

intervened and save the day, there came to Joseph a supernatural revelation that Mary’s

pregnancy was not because of another man. Her conception and this child was the

supernatural and prophecied action of God the Holy Spirit (1:20-21). This son therefore would

be of the Messianic promise, He would be Immanuel (= “ God with us”), the literal fulfilment

of the prophet Isaiah’s declaration in Isaiah 7:14 (1:23). He would save His people from their

sins – He would be the Savior of Israel (1:21-22), Jesus (or Yeshua) whose name means “

Yahweh is salvation.” Joseph’s dilemma turned into unbelievable deliverance for his own

family and his nation. Matthew, the ever meticulous scribe, dutifully notes that Joseph had no

sexual relations with Mary until after the promised child was born in Bethlehem (v. 25). Then,

immediately in the next phase of the narrative (2:1-12), Matthew depicts the aftermath of Jesus’

nativity in Bethlehem when the mysterious Magi (Gk. magoi) arrived in the city of David

looking for the King of the Jews. Matthew notes how these sages of the East were led there by a

special Star (astronomical phenomena ?) and that they had made their immense journey to

honor and worship this child who was born a God-ordained king.12

Every person who carefully studies the nativity narratives in Matthew and Luke’s

respective Gospels will note that there is a significant divergence of the list of names in the two

geneaologies. Professor Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary) makes the important point in his

commentary that there are two contemporary views about these distinctive geneaologies:

Two major proposals concern the divergence of names in the two
geneaologies: (1) Luke presents Mary’s geneaology, while Matthew relates
Joseph’s ; (2) Luke presents Mary’s geneaology, while Matthew gives his legal
ancestory by which he was the legitimate successor to the throne of David.
Knowing which of these solutions is more likely probably is impossible unless new
evidence turns up.13

While certainly agreeing with many scholars that Jewish Matthew had a concern for

establishing the geneaological purity of Jesus’ ancestory, this writer is not so keen on the theory

that such motivation led Matthew to a strained midrashic exegesis of the Bible’s texts to prove

it.14 Professor Craig A. Evans in a popular layman’s commentary on the Synoptic Gospels

questions the assumption behind this kind of reasoning, i.e., that there was not unanimous

59

Jewish opinion in the early Christian period that the Messiah would stem from David. While

this researcher cannot comment on whether there was indeed unanimous Jewish opinion about

the Messiah’s Jewish ancestory in the first two centuries A.D., he is absolutely certain that the

New Testament writers reflected the ancient teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures that the Messiah

would be of the seed of David. Professor Evans wisely comments:

Although the Matthean and Lukan geneaologies differ in significant ways,
they agree that Jesus was the descendent of King David. Some scholars dispute
this tradition, but there is important evidence in its support. Paul accepted it,
even though it seems to have been of little importance to him (Rom. 1:3). There is
not a hint that the claim of Davidic descent was controversial. As a former
opponent of the early Church, one would think Paul would have known of such
controversy, had there been any. There is also a tradition that the grandsons of
Jesus’ brother were questioned regarding their Davidic descent (Eusebius, Hist.
Eccl. 3:20; cf. Africanus, Letter to the Aristides; b. Sanh. 43a: “ with Yeshu [i.e.,
Jesus] it was different, for he was related to royalty [lit. to the kingdom]”). 15

Thus it appears to this writer that while there may have been some philosophical

speculation about the Messiah’s proper credentials among non-believing Jews, Matthew’s

purpose was not speculative or exegetical (in the symbolic sense) but strictly historical and

factual. Matthew-Levi, a former Roman tax-collector and public scribe (somewhat akin to a

modern city or county commisioner), desired, we believe, to refute the latter Jewish suspicion of

illegitimacy surrounding Mary with the example on ancient non-Jewish heroines sanctioned

through Divine blessing and election. The entire context of the Virgin conception (vv. 18-25)

makes it clear that Mary’s innocence is due to God’s miraculous action. One must either accept

it whole-cloth or entirely doubt it. The specific grammar of the text in v. 16 however, makes it

certain that the author believed firmly that Joseph was not the human father of Jesus as the

relative pronoun “whom” (Gk., ἧς ) here is feminine and therefore can only refer to Mary as the

human parent of the Christ child.16 Professor Ethelert Stauffer, after his painstaking review of

the remote evidence in The Gospel of John (John 2, 3), the paradoxical negative evidence of Mark

6:3,4 and even the remoter Islamic (Koranic) tradition about Jesus (Sura 3.40; 19:16ff. ),

bombastically asserts:

60

To sum up: Jesus was the son of Mary, not of Joseph. That is the historical fact,
recognized alike by Christians and Jews friends and adversaries. This fact is signifi–
cant and ambiguous like all the facts in the history of Jesus. The Christian believed
him to begotten by act of the Divine Creator. The Jews of antiquity spoke of Mary
as an adultress. Out of this struggle between interpretation and counter–interpreta–
tion – which, according to Mark 6,3 and Matthew 11,19, had already begun in the
lifetime of Jesus–the account of the ancestory of Jesus in the major Gospels emerged.
They lay stress on Joseph’s having bowed himself to the miracle of God. He neither
denounced nor abandoned Mary, but rather took her into his house as his lawful
wife and legitimized the son of Mary by personally naming him. By this act Jesus
was admitted in a formal, legal sense to the house of David.17

As the author endeavored to throughly review the facts about the two Gospel

geneaologies, he came across a fresh perspective written by a contemporary well-informed

Jewish-Christian (i.e. Messianic Jew), Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum who has re-explored this

question. As this author attempted to explain how Matthew intended to defend the rightful

claim of Yeshua ben Joseph to the throne of David, he emphasized the diverse perspectives of

Matthew and Luke. First, let us hear his introductory comments:

Of the four Gospels, only two give us a genealogy, the same two that deal with
the birth and early life of Jesus. Both Mark and John do not deal with the birth of Yeshua
or His early life. Matthew and Luke do record those events, so it is natural that only these
two would bother recording a genealogy. While both Matthew and Luke give us the
story of the birth of Jesus, they tell the story from two different perspectives; Matthew
tells the story from Joseph's perspective, while Luke tells the story from Mary's
perspective. In Matthew, we are told what Joseph is thinking, what is going on in his
mind; but we are told nothing of what Mary is thinking. We read of how angels appeared
to Joseph, but there is no record of angels appearing to Mary.
On the other hand, when we go to Luke's gospel, we see this same story told
from Mary's perspective. In the Gospel of Luke, it is Mary who plays the active role while
Joseph plays the passive role. We find the angels appearing to Mary, but no angels
appearing to Joseph. We are told several times what goes on in the mind of Mary but we
are never told anything about what Joseph is thinking. From this context, when we have
these two genealogies and these two Gospels only, it should be very evident that since
Matthew tells the story from Joseph's perspective, we have the genealogy of Joseph;
whereas when Luke tells the story from Mary's perspective, we have the genealogy of
Mary instead.18

Yet, as Dr. Fruchtenbaum goes on to examine in detail the need for two distinctive

geneaologies, he differs in an important respect from the typical evangelical account. The

popular view is that while Matthew gives us the “royal line” of Jesus, Luke provides the “real” or

61

biological ancestory of the same. Accordingly, he observes that some teachers holding that

Joseph is the heir-apparent to the throne of David reason that since Jesus is the adopted son of

Joseph, he has a rightful legal claim to David’s throne. Fruchtenbaum avers, however

“Therefore, these teachers conclude that: through Mary, He was a member of the House of

David, but He claims the right to sit on David's throne through Joseph because He was the heir-

apparent. However, we will show in this study that, actually, the exact opposite is true. ”19 How

is this interpretation possible? Our author offers this sagacious argument:

Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition in two ways: he skips names, and he
mentions names of women. Matthew mentions four different women in his genealogy:
Tamar, the wife of Judah; Rahab; Ruth and Bathsheba. Why does he mention these four
when there are so many other prominent Jewish women whom he could have mentioned
in the genealogy of Yeshua? One thing that the four women had in common was that
they were all Gentile. What Matthew was doing by naming these four women and no
others is to point out that one of the purposes of the coming of Yeshua was not only to
save the lost sheep of the House of Israel, but also that Gentiles would benefit from His
coming. Three of these women were guilty of specific sexual sins: one was guilty of
adultery; one was guilty of prostitution; and one was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew
begins hinting at a point he makes quite clear later; that the purpose of the coming of the
Messiah was to save sinners. While Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition in these two
ways, Luke, however, follows strict Jewish law, procedure and custom; he does not skip
names, and he does not mention any women's names. 20

On the other hand, while agreeing with the essential logic of Dr. Fruchtenbaum’s

analysis of Matthew’s geneaology, it is possible to see First Gospel writer’s greater thrust as

actually setting for the the royal succession coming from David and culminating in Jesus. There

are at least three sets of facts in favor of this understanding: (1) His geneaology follows the

actual line of Jewish kings; (2) Since Matthew’s Gospel narrative is distinctively that of the

Gospel of the Kingdom, his reports of Jesus’ ministry emphasize Jesus’ ultimate Messianic

intentions which would fulfill the hope of the Hebrew Scriptures (Matthew 4:17; 5:17-19, etc.).

Indeed, in the latter part of Matthew’s record Jesus’ Transfiguration underscores “ Jesus coming

in His Kingdom ”(16:28). (3) Finally, Matthew’s genealogy is nuanced in a special way: he links

the names in his geneaology with the term “begat.” The English idea of this word would seem

to exclude any shifts in the actual blood line yet the Greek term gennao (Gk., ) denotes

not merely biological conception but also frequently means “cause to bring forth” or

62

“produce.” God arranges kingdoms, marriages, and births !21 Yet, as has already been painfully

observed, Matthew and Luke’s geneologies radically differ (which is acknowledged in Dr.

Fruchtenbaum’s analysis). Dr. Edward Rickard argues that the succession did pass into Joseph’s

line at the time of Salathiel (Sheatiel) and Zerubbabel (comparing Luke 3:27 and Matthew 1:12),

yet passed out of it again for several centuries. He suggests that if Matthan in Matthew’s list

(v.15) is the same as Matthat in Luke’s (v. 24), the succession returned to Joseph’s blood line

only a generation or two before Jesus was born (this part, of course, disagreeing with Dr.

Fruchtenbaum’s argument).22 And because this point is so crucial to this study we shall quote

Dr. Rickard in extensio:

Second argument: The two genealogies of Jesus seem to contradict each other.
Reply: The following are the three most serious discrepancies.

1. The two lines converge in the names Salathiel and Zorobabel, but diverge in the name of
Salathiel's predecessor (Matt. 1:12-13; Luke 3:27). Matthew calls him Jechonias (Jeconiah). Luke calls
him Neri. The Old Testament states that Salathiel (that is, Shealtiel) was the son of Jeconiah.

15 And the sons of Josiah were Johanan the first-born, and the second was Jehoiakim, the third
Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
16 And the sons of Jehoiakim were Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.
17 And the sons of Jeconiah, the prisoner, were Shealtiel his son,
18 and Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.
19 And the sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei. And the sons of Zerubbabel were
Meshullam and Hananiah, and Shelomith was their sister;
20 And Hashubah, Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-hesed, five.
1 Chronicles 3:15-20

Shealtiel's place at the head of Jeconiah's sons clearly indicates that he was the principal heir—indeed,
that he was the legitimate successor to the throne (v. 17). The expression "his son" after Shealtiel's
name does not necessarily signify physical descent, however. The double occurrence of Zedekiah's
name (vv. 15-16) shows that the expression can designate merely an appointed heir. Although
Zedekiah is called Jehoiakim's son (v. 16), he was not the natural son of Jehoiakim. He was actually
Jehoiakim's brother (v. 15; 2 Kings 24:17). Thus, the meaning of the record is that Jehoiakim had two
successors with the legal status of sons. The first was his natural son Jeconiah. The second was
Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar placed on the throne in Jeconiah's place. In conformity with the
official genealogy stated here, the chronicler elsewhere identifies Zedekiah as Jeconiah's brother (2
Chron. 36:10). After listing the sons of Jehoiakim, the record goes on to indicate that after Zedekiah
was removed from the throne, the throne rights reverted to Jeconiah, who was still alive, a prisoner in
Babylon (v. 17). The right of succession then passed to Shealtiel, who, like Zedekiah, need not have
been Jeconiah's natural son. Indeed, he was the son of Neri (Luke 3:27).

63

The circumstances leading Jeconiah or his Babylonian overlords to bestow kingly honors on Shealtiel
cannot now be imagined. Yet a break in the royal succession had been predicted by Jeremiah.

28 Is this man Coniah [Jeconiah] a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no
pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which
they know not?
29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.
30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his
days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any
more in Judah.
Jeremiah 22:28-30

Jeremiah had declared that no physical descendant of Jeconiah would ever sit on the throne of David.
If his prophecy was true, and if Jesus was the Christ who would sit on the throne of David forever,
Jeconiah obviously could not have been an ancestor of Jesus. We have already shown why the
inclusion of Jeconiah's name in Matthew's genealogy (Matt. 1:12-13) offers no great difficulty.
Matthew gives a roster of kings and legitimate pretenders, not a roster of ancestors. Salathiel, the next
person after Jeconiah in Matthew's list, was an ancestor of Jesus, but not a descendant of Jeconiah. He
was, in fact, the son of Neri. Jesus was descended from David through Nathan and Neri rather than
through Solomon and Jeconiah. The curse on Jeconiah did not touch the blood lineage of Jesus.

2. Both genealogies state that Zorobabel (Zerubbabel) was the son of Salathiel (Matt. 1:12; Luke 3:27).
But the Old Testament chronicler identifies Zerubbabel as the son of Pedaiah (1 Chron. 3:19). Though
present knowledge does not permit an easy solution, the discrepancy does not undermine our
confidence in the two genealogies of Jesus, since, in their assertion that He descended from Salathiel
(Shealtiel), they agree with each other and with several Old Testament texts (Ezra 3:8; 5:2; Neh. 12:1;
Hag. 1:1). If we grant that Luke states the blood line of Christ, we must conclude that Salathiel was
indeed Zorobabel's father or grandfather. Pedaiah and the others listed in 1 Chronicles 3:18 may be
the sons of Shealtiel rather than Jeconiah.

3. After Zorobabel, the two Gospel genealogies proceed along different lines. Matthew notices the
descent through Abiud (Matt. 1:13), whereas Luke focuses on the heirs of Rhesa (Luke 3:27). The
difficulty is that neither name appears as a son of Zerubbabel in the chronicler's official genealogy (1
Chron. 3:17-20). Nevertheless, it is likely that Rhesa was another name of Zerubbabel's principal son,
Hananiah. Many Jewish captives assumed two names, one Hebrew, one in the language of their
captors. Whereas Hananiah is a Hebrew name, Rhesa is the Persian word for "prince," a most suitable
title for a man who stood in the succession of Jewish kings (12). Abiud's absence from the chronicler's
genealogy may mean only that Matthew skipped one or more generations between Zorobabel and
Abiud. The many gaps in his list of kings—between Joram (Jehoram) and Ozias (Uzziah), for
example, he omits Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (Matt. 1:8)—demonstrate that he did not intend to
furnish a complete genealogy.23

The reader may find the following chart helpful in understanding the wonderful

providential manner of God acting in history to both to judge (i.e., the Divine curse on Jeconiah’s

64

immediate bloodline) and redeem (i.e., His arrangement of Jeconiah’s adoption of Sheatiel, who

was actually the son of Neri in Babylon and then Zerubbabel’s own adoption by Pedaiah, who

was actually the son of Neri in the untained bloodline of Nathan, son of David). And if God’s

removal of the “curse” on three generations is not enough, He even brings about one more

generation of removal by having Joseph to be legally adopted by Mary’s father Heli near the

time of their engagement. Either with Dr. Fruchtenbaum’s simple explanation or the more

intricate exposition of Dr. Rickard, Arthur Custance, et al., no curse falls upon blessed head of

Jesus, the son of Mary and the Son of God. And, indeed, like his illustrious ancester Zerubbabel,

He is prophetically marked out and directly appointed by the LORD God in His person and

office. There are no higher credentials.

24

65

C. Angelic Messengers and Troubling Dreams

Now, let us turn to the Gospel text in question and we shall make our observations

directly from the original Greek text:

τοῦ δὲ Ἰη οῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς
αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ
ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ
θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν. ταῦτα δὲ
αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ’ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων
Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου τὸ
γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου. τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ
καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ
τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ
κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ
τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ ὅ ἐστιν μεθερ-
μηνευόμενον μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός. ἐγερθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου
ἐποίησεν ὡς προσέταξεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου καὶ παρέλαβεν τὴν
γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ. καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν καὶ ἐκάλε-
σεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.

(Matthew 1:18-25, Greek punctuation slightly modified, JDR)

Professor R.T. France, one of the best contemporary commentators on Matthew’s

Gospel, offers some excellent initial comments on these verses. He begins as follows:

These verses do not relate to the birth of Jesus, but explain his origin (the virgin
conception) and his name in relation to a specific Old Testament prophecy. They
concentrate entirely on the experiences of Joseph rather than those of Mary (as do
also 2:13-23). Even the miraculous conception of Jesus is related only as its discovery
affected Joseph. This remarkable concentration, compared with the complete silence on
Joseph elsewhere, may indicate that Matthew’s infancy material (except for 2:1-12, where
Joseph is noticeably absent from v. 11) derives from special traditions originating with
Joseph (whereas Luke’s very different account is clearly dependent on Mary’s
reminiscences). It may also be the result of Matthew’s concern to establish Jesus’ legal
lineage through Joseph, i.e., to explain how the preceding geneaology applies to Jesus the
son of Mary.25

The present writer enjoys this vintage scholar’s commentary because he does not flinch

in presenting the Biblical claims of the Virgin Birth. He then continues with exceptional clarity

on this point:

66

That Jesus was conceived by a virgin mother without the agency of Joseph is
clearly stated throughout this section, and is the basis for the introduction of the question
in vv. 22-23. It is not so much argued or even described, but assumed as a known fact.
There may be an element of apologetic in Matthew’s stress on Joseph’s surprise, his
abstentation from intercourse, the angel’s explanation of Jesus’ divine orgin, and the
scriptural grounds for a virgin birth, due perhaps to a early form of the later Jewish
charge that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate (see Brown, pp. 534–542). But the account reads
primarily as if designed for a Christian readership, who wanted to know more precisely
how Mary’s marriage to Joseph related to the miraculous conception of Jesus, and who
would find the same delight that Matthew himself found in tracing in this the detailed
fulfilment of prophecy.26

Now to the particular matter of Joseph’s troubling dreams and the special mission of

Gabriel, the archangelic messenger. This is the situation that precedes Joseph’s coming to

understand that Mary’s virginal conception was the work of the Holy Spirit. At first his mental

state and his reaction is that of any man, of any potential groom of a decent sort. He is highly

disturbed and grieved at the apparent unfaithfulness and perceived promiscuity of his

perspective bride. Yet, in this case, as we have already summarized, the potential legal

consequences for Mary were that of both traumatic personal shame and capital punishment.

But God’s redemptive solution far outran Joseph’s careful and quiet legal maneuvers to save his

own and his spouse’s reputation and to avoid the harsh punitive measures of the Torah. This in

itself is a picture of God’s grace: as Immanuel, He comes by the work of the Holy Spirit to bring

His own saving righteousness to all those who will receive His love (John 1:12,13; Romans 6:11-

14). For Joseph, however, this comes as a revelation in the midst of his mental stress and

troubled sleep. Like the ancient patriarch with the same name (who also had his share of

troubles as God’s chosen man), Joseph, the betrothed of Mary, found Divine guidance and

promise in his dreams (Genesis 37:5; 40:8-9, 16; 41:15,17). Craig A. Evans has explained how

important revelatory dreams were not only found in the Hebrew Scriptures but also even

reported among ancient Gentiles:

Dreams were taken very seriously in antiquity, among Gentiles (Illiad 1:63;
5.150; Virgil, Aenid 4.556-557; Ovid, Metamorphoses 9.685-701; Arrian, Alexander
2.18.1) and the Jewish people (1QapGen. 19:14-23 [where Abraham is warned in
a dream]; Jub. 27:1-23; 32;41:24; Ps.–Philo, Bib. Ant. 9.10); 42:3; 4 Ezra 10:59; b. Bat.
10a; b. Ber. 55a-58a) alike.27

67

We are explicitly told how God alters Joseph’s plans in Matthew 1:20-21. The “angel of

the Lord” which appears in Matthew 1-2 is unnamed, but Luke clearly states that it was Gabriel

that spoke both to Zecharias and Elizabeth and to Mary in Nazareth. Joseph’s angel may have

been different, but he may well have been the same. This is especially plausible in light of the

revelation to Daniel the prophet (8:15-18; 9:20-23). The most important point here is that

Gabriel’s communication to Joseph not only has Old Testament precedents but angelic

mediated Divine messages frame the First Gospel (cf. 2:12-13,19,22; 27:19 [Pilate’s wife’s

dream]).28 It is this disclosure from the Lord that relieves the conflict in Joseph’s mind and

makes unnecessary his otherwise practical human solution. Since the angel assures Joseph that

Mary has not been unfaithful and that her child has been supernaturally conceived through

direct action of God, he is ready to marry her and also fulfill his role in the Messianic plan. The

angel revives Joseph’s consciousness of his messianic lineage by calling him “son of David.”

Joseph, a righteous man, now with angelic support, is ready not only not to divorce Mary but to

marry her immediately. And, although we have seen the point disputed, it would seem that

Jesus’ status as Joseph’s legal son allowed Him to be legally the Son of David.29

The absolute miraculous uniqueness of Jesus is underscored in v. 21 of Matthew’s first

chapter. His name, as we transliterate it in English, is Jesus, but the original Hebrew name was

Yeshua (given in The Greek New Testament as Ἰησοῦς). And Yeshua (i.e., Joshua) is formed from

combining the name of Yahweh with the verb “ to save”. Hence, His name literally means that

“ Yahweh is salvation ” or that “ the LORD saves”. It is also true that Jesus’ ministry will

involve the future physical liberation of Israel from her worldly enemies among the nations

(Matthew 23:37-39; Acts 3:19-21; Romans 11:11-27; and Revelation 7:1-8; 14:1-5; 21:1-21) but He

now offers present spiritual deliverance from their sins which have alienated them from God

the Father (Matthew 10:5-15; 10:27-42; 11: 15 -30; 20:1-28; 22:1-14; 22:34-46).

D. Observations of Prophecies Fulfilled.

The prophecy of the Virgin birth (quoted by Evangelist Matthew in 1:22,23) is one of the

most amazing statements of the Holy Bible and unparalleled in its theological grandeur. Yet,

68

sadly, it is also one of the most controversial subjects linked to the Nativity of Christ. The matter

of prophecy necessitates a brief discussion of what is called the “Higher Criticism” of the Bible

before we can proceed further.

The philosophical and scientific rationalism which grew out of the Enlightenment Era

(ca. 1600 – 1789) led directly to the caustic anti-supernatural Biblical Criticism of the eighteenth,

nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. This movement may be said to have formally began with

the attacks of Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) in his Leviathan (1651). Although he professed

Christianity, he questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the miracles of the Old

and New Testament. There were others like the philosopher Benedict Spinoza (1632 – 1677), a

pantheistic Dutch Jew, in whose works such as Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata (1677) and

his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670) questioned all the traditions of revealed religion, both

Jewish and Christian by a geometrical rationalist logic. Richard Simon (1638 – 1712) then

explicitly carried out this program by endeavoring to debunk the credentials of both the

Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). His three

chief critical books, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Paris, 1678) (E.T., A Crititical History of

the Old Testament, published 1682), Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam

1689), and Histoire critique des principaux commentaires du Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1693) set the

stage for all of the eighteenth century’s dismissal of the Divine authority of the Bible.30

Thereafter, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries brought in a more forceful and

caustive exegesis of the Biblical text. There were many examples, but a few stand out in relief.

Jean Astruc (1684 – 1766), a French physician, set out to refute some of the seventeenth century

critics but ended up dividing Genesis into two distinct documents by a Elohist and Yahwist

author used by Moses later. His book was Conjectures sur la Genèse (Brussels, 1753). He also

suggested that the Four Gospels were separate but complimentary accounts of the life of Jesus

which employed a similar method. Astruc’s method indeed was adopted by a number of

German and other European scholars who brought to a full theory the idea of “higher criticism”

of the Bible which fundamentally explained away the sacred writings as purely human and

temporal productions. Two important examples came in the later work of Johann Gottfried

Eichhorn (1752–1827) and Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849). Eichhorn (often

69

called “ the father of modern Old Testament Criticism”) wrote his Einleitung in das Alte

Testament (5 vols., Leipzig, 1780–1783) and his Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig, 1804–

1812). According to Wikipedia:

He took for granted that all the supernatural events related in the Old and New
Testaments were explicable on natural principles. He sought to judge them from the
standpoint of the ancient world, and to account for them by the superstitious beliefs
which were then generally in vogue. He did not perceive in the biblical books any
religious ideas of much importance for modern times; they interested him merely
historically and for the light they cast upon antiquity. 31

DeWette, on the other hand, was a liberal German Lutheran pastor and theologian who

prepared the way for more extreme analysis of the Pentateuch than either Simon’s or Astruc’s,

sometimes called the “Supplement Theory.” His two essential works were Beiträge zur

Einleitung in das Alte Testament (2 vols; Leipzig, 1806–1807) and Einleitung in das Neue

Testament (Berlin, 1826). It was during this era that the so-called JEPD theory or Documentary

Hypothesis of the Pentateuch displaced the ancient Jewish view that God revealed the Torah to

Moses. This process of a rationalistic dissolution of Biblical history reached an zenith in the

work of Julius Wellhausen (1844 – 1918) who added his special twist to the rewriting of Biblical

Jewish history. Wellhausen, a theology professor and gifted orientalist taught at several German

universities (Greifswald, Halle, Marburg, and Göttingen). His epoch-making work was

Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1882; 3rd ed., 1886; Eng. trans., Edinburgh, 1883, 1891;

5th German edition, 1899) which totally rewrote Old Testament history according to a liberal

rationalistic view of religion and evolutionary development of human thought.32

Thus was prepared the background of doubt and historical skepticism which would

reflect on Jesus the Messiah and particularly the Nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke. But

we ask the reader to endure a little more on the history of the Lives of Jesus and Gospel

criticism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Many, although not all of the liberals

who pursued the “Quest for the historical Jesus” in the nineteenth century (i.e., the First Quest)

would have been happy to assign the person of Jesus Christ to the status of myth, but such a

conclusion generally conflicted with even the minimal allowances they themselves made for his

70

historical existence. Typically, those like Karl Venturini, Heinrich G. Paulus, David Strauss,

Bruno Bauer, William Bousset in the nineteenth and those like Rudolf Bultmann and Schubert

M. Ogden in the twentieth century would dismiss all accept the minimum of historical data

about Jesus Christ and categorically deny any supernaturalism connected to his birth. 33 Besides

only giving credit to the most elementary materials in the Synoptic Gospels and virtually no

recognition to anything remotely historical in John’s Gospel account, they reflect a fundamental

negative philosophical and theological stance:

The liberal questers estimate of Jesus involved a denial of the historic Christian
Christian creeds. Jesus was not the metaphysical Son of God or deity. The difference of
Jesus from us was not one of kind, but only one of degree. On the other hand, these
writers agreed that he was looked upon as deity by the early Christians. Our estimate
of him, rather, should be from a point of view of his excellence as a man. He was to be
revered primarily for his ethical thought, his spiritual force, and his moral excellence.
These characteristics inspired the disciples in the formation of the Church, which is the
continuing evidence of his significance. 34

The Liberal “Lives of Jesus” have went through several stages from the later nineteenth

century until the recent decades: (1) The so-called History-of-Religions School (German: Die

religionsgeschichtliche Schule) which included among others Johannes Weiss (1863 – 1914),

William Bousset (1865 – 1920), Albert Eichhorn (1856 – 1926), Hermann Gunkel (1862 – 1932),

Rudolf Otto (1869 – 1937), and Richard August Reitzenstein (1861– 1931). Probably, some of the

inspiration and methodology of this group also derived from the work of the two acclaimed

liberal theologians Adolf von Harnack (1851 – 1930) and Ernest Troeltsch (1865 – 1923)35; (2)

Then, the critical view of the “Liberal Jesus” led by William Wrede (1859 – 1906), Albert

Schwietzer (1875 – 1965), and Martin Kahler (1835 – 1912) which dismissed the previous school

for its inconsistent rationalism and subjectivism and its lack of recognition of the eschatological

element in early Christianity 36; (3) The existentialist school (philosophical and theological) of

Rudolf Bultmann (1884 – 1976) and his students which expressed almost total skepticism about

the historical character of the Gospels and New Testament (i.e., formgeschicte historie) and

proceeded to a radical program of “demythologization” of the miracles and Christology of the

New Testament 37; (4) The conservative and neo-orthodox critics of Bultmann’s existentialistic

71

theology and demythological approach to Christianity such as Karl Barth (1886 – 1968),

Ethelbert Stauffer (1902 – 1979), Joachim Jeremias (1900 - 1979), and Walter Kunneth (1901 –

1997), as well as the more radical critics farther philosophically and theologically to the left such

as German philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883 – 1969) and American theothanatologist Schubert M.

Ogden (1928 – 2012) 38; (5) The “New Quest” for the Historical Jesus from the 1960s and 1970s

39; and finally, (6) the more recent “Third Quest” of both believing and non-believing scholars in

the 1980s and beyond.40

But now the reader is entitled to ask ? How do such developments and speculations

affect the prophecy of the Virgin Birth of Christ ? Unfortunately, much in every way because a

denial of the historical nature of Christ’s incarnation has been accompanied for several centuries

by related denial of Messianic prophecies, particularly the famous “Immanuel Prophecy” of

Isaiah 7:14ff.

A few years ago Professor James T. Dennison, a distinguished Presbyterian church

historian and editor of the online journal KERUX, reminded his readers of ancient Solomon’s

maxim that “there is nothing new under the Sun ” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, 10). The occasion for this

timely comment was his review of a new book on the contest between Christianity and ancient

Greco-Roman paganism. The work in question was John G. Cook, The Interpretation of the New

Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. As the good

professor drew his review to an end, he trenchantly remarked:

Cook's conclusion (pp. 335-40) is a summary of the pagan apologetic juxtaposed
with the Apostles' Creed. Here he measures pagan objections to Christianity by the early
confessional definition of faith. At each point, the antithesis is evident. Paganism
opposed every element of the Christian confession. It still does—whether in its
Enlightenment guise or Modernist/Post-Modernist rags. One of the most arresting
revelations of Cook's work is the similarity in attack upon the Scriptures which we find
in these Greco-Roman opponents and the comparable views of those devoted to so-called
"scientific" Biblical criticism. Indeed, "there is nothing new under the sun." 41

The goodly professor’s observation is accurate, and it provides a most interesting entree

to the matter of the perennial attacks on the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ. One

of the earliest formal intellectual attacks came from the pagan Neo-Platonist philosopher

72

Porphyry of Tyre (234? – 305? A.D.), a student of Athenian Longinus and the famous Latin

philosopher Plotinus. Although an author of many philosophical and literary works, he is

perhaps best known for his anti-Christian polemic, Against the Christians (Adversus Christianos,

ca. later 3rd century). The following are some of this ancient philosophical critic of Christianity’s

musings:

5) "Jewish tradition and later pagan critics knew Jesus as the son of a woman named Miriam or
Miriamne, who had been violated and become pregnant by a Roman soldier whose name often appears
a Panthera in talmudic and midrashic sources. The "single parent" tradition, if not the story of Jesus'
illegitimacy, is still apparent in Mark, the earliest gospel (Mark 6:3), as is an early attempt to show Jesus'
freedom from the blemish of his background (Mark 3:33-4)."

"To counter the reports of Jesus' illegitimacy more than to secure his divine stature, his mother was
declared the recipient of a singular divine honor: Jesus was the son of Mary - a virgin - "through the
holy spirit" (Matthew 1:20). As is typical of his writing, Matthew comes closest to revealing the
argumentative purpose of his birth story and its links to Jewish polemic against Christian belief in his
reference to Joseph's suspicion of Mary's pregnancy (Matthew 1:19). He is also careful in the birth story
and elsewhere to provide evidence and proofs from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew
bible - as a running narrative. "

6) Regarding the Biblical prophecies concerning Jesus: "Porphyry notes that what is said in Hebrew
prophecy could as well apply to a dozen other figures, dead or yet to come, as to Jesus." 42

Yet, there has always been a vigorous Biblical and historical defense against this kind of
low attack of Christianity. An exceptionally fine response has been provided quite recently by a

studious Christian writer:

It is clear that the pagan critics used the Panthera as an attack on the Virgin Birth,
which in their metaphysical paradigm was either impossible altogether or possible only
in the way in which pagan myths reported the gods and goddesses having sex with mor-
tals to produce heroes such as Hercules. They had set to attack Christianity as a forceful
new rival to their traditions, so, one basic tactic to cast aspersions upon the founder of the
religion. Without the Virgin Birth as a defining doctrine involved in establishing Jesus’
divinity, the pagans would probably have ignored Jesus’ otherwise disreputable concep–
tion and birth. Illegitimacy was a comparatively minor issue except in matters of legal
succession or inheritance. The Virgin Birth, however, drew pagan criticism like a light–
ening rod, and Mary’s character or reputation was of no concern to them. Celsus and
Porphyry despised Christianity and Christians with no restraint. Any pretext would do,
even one as feeble and unsubstantial as that taken from the Talmud, if that really were the
source for their ideas. Further, if they had actually comprehended the Virgin Birth in its
distinction from the pagan myths, the moral and spiritual implications of it would have
only worsened their hostility.43

73

Later, the critics have continued their assault by endeavoring to remove the very

possibility of a virgin birth in the 1 st century A.D. by denying that there ever was meant to be a

virgin birth even in the prophetic records. Professor Ernst Wilhelm Henstenberg, whose classic

Christology of the Old Testament we have previously referenced, has explained this tact:

. . . . The Messianic interpretation has the prevailing one in the Christian Church
in all ages. It was followed by all the Fathers and other Christian expositors till the
middle of the eighteenth century; some of them, however, held that besides its
higher reference to the Messiah, it related in a lower sense to an event in the time
of the Prophet. – The principal objections which, after the example of the Jews, Is–
enbeihl, Gesenius, and others have brought against this interpretation, are the fol–
lowing.44 [ jdr, note: After this, on pp, 173 – 176 Professor Henstenberg lists and then -
exegetically, historically and philologically demolishes the four main objections of modern
critical interpreters like W. Gesenius, J. Isenbiehl, J.D. Michaelis, F. Rosenmuller, et al. to
the strictly Messianic and futuristic interpretation of v. 14].

Dr. Hengstenberg also effectively handles the objections of those who would use the

contextual verses of Isaiah 7:15-16, and we quote him again at length:

How then is it possible to make these two verses harmonize with the preceding ?
How can the Prophet make the development of the powers of a child, who should be
born seven hundred years later, synchronize with the deliverance of the land from its
enemies,which took place in a little time after his prediction ? The view of Vitringa,
Lowth, and Koppe, comes nearest the truth. According to them, the Prophet employs the
period between the birth of the Messiah, and the development of his faculties, as a measure of
time for the complete deliverance of the land from its enemies. It is of the utmost
importance to observe, that the fifteenth and sixteenth verses were spoken in the same
ecstasy, in which he be–held the Messiah (the fourteenth verse) as present. His vision
here, as in all other cases has no concern with time. The child appearing before his
prophetic eye as already born, he borrows from him his measure of time. What he means
to say, is, that within the space of about three years, the two hostile kingdoms will be
overthrown. This he expresses by saying, that the same space of time would elapse
before that event as between the birth of the child, which he then beheld as present, and
his coming to the age of discretion. – Having made this general remarks, we now proceed
to an explanation of particulars. It is asked, in the first place, what we are to understand
by eating milk and honey. Several interpreters take this as a designation of wealth and
abundance: but they have confounded two very different modes of expression, viz. to eat
milk and honey, and to flow with milk and honey; and the twenty-second verse plainly
shows, that the eating of milk and honey must be regarded as a consequence of a general
devastation of the country. The fields being laid waste, those who remained must lead a
nomadic life, being sustained by wild honey, and the produce of their herds, which now
be more numerous than before, in consequence of the great abundance of pasturage. The
phrase, ‘to know to choose the good and refuse the evil,’ signifies the first commencement of

74

moral consciousness in the child, at the age of two to three years. The sense of the verse
therefore is: the existing generation , represented by this child, whose birth was viewed by the
Prophet as present, would not for some years to come obtain the quiet possession of the country,
but but be obliged to live on the produce of their herds, which would find abundant pasturage in
the devastated land. Then, in the sixteenth verse, follows the prediction, that nevertheless
before the close of this period, the ruin of the two hostile kings, and the desolation of
their lands (by the Assyrians) would ensue. So that afterwards, the products of the
country would in the mean time be cultivated, could again be quietly enjoyed. – The land
will be forsaken, that is, it will be laid waste, and deprived of its inhabitants. 45

Over the last two and one-half centuries there have been many higher critics who have

denied the true prophetic prediction of Isaiah 7:14-16 even as they have rejected several hundred

more other prophecies of the Hebrew Tanakh. It would be impossible to name all of them in this

period, but Dr. Edward Hindson listed about twenty major non-Messianic interpreters from the

late eighteenth century until 1965. These scholars have in one way or another revived part of the

ancient non-believing Jewish and pagan approaches to the Messianic prophecies and the

Immanuel prophecy in particular.46 Nevertheless, the traditional (evangelical) and orthodox

view of this pericope has had its stalwart learned defenders among Biblical orientalists,

archaeologists, and historians.47 Finally, there are a number of reasonably conservative and

evangelical scholars (as well as some of a liberal theological persuasion) who endeavor to

defend a “dual fulfillment” of the prophetic statement in Isaiah 7:14ff.48

75

Since those who reject Biblical prophecy begin with a set of negative presuppositions

about what God can and can do, we shall not endeavor to refute them at this point, but only

acknowledge that Christian believers are moved to believe that a sovereign and transcendent

Creator of the cosmos can and does know the future (please see our arguments from Pt. I, Ch.

8).49 One of the most provocative arguments against the critics of literal, predictive prophecy is

that they so radically contradict one another in their various denials. Professor J.A. Alexander of

Princeton quipped about a century and a half ago that the only thing the “Higher Critics” of

Biblical prophecy agree upon is that there simply “cannot be distinct prophetic foresight of the

distant future”50 Edward H. Dewart further comments: “Among German Biblical theologians

there are sad examples of men who deny the supernatural, and make their interpretations of

Scripture conform to their skepticism.”51 Then he gives some salient examples:

F. Baur (quoted by Dr. Pusey) says: “The main argument for the later date of our
Gospels is, after all, this: that they one by one, and still more collectively, exhibit so much
out of the life of Jesus in a way that is impossible .” Knobel (quoted by DeWette) says: “ To
maintain the genuineness of Isaiah xxiii., and yet refer it to a siege of Tyre, by
Nebuchadnezzar, more than a century later, as Jerome, etc., do, is impossible, in that in
Isaiah’s time there could be no anticipation of it, much less a confident and definite
announcement of it.” Kuenen and his school take a similar position. No interpretation
that involves the miraculous intervention of God in human affairs is admitted by him. He
expounds the prophecies avowedly to exclude and disprove all actual fulfilment. With
him prophecy “ is a human phenomenon proceeding from Israel, directed to Israel. ”
Jewish and Christian miracles are placed in the same category as those of Buddha and
Mahomet. It is extraordinary and significant that Prof. Workman quotes Dr. Kuenen, the
avowed denier of supernatural predictions, with approval as an authority against the
fulfilment of Old Testament predictions. It needs little argument to show that the theories
of this negative school of critics undermine and assail a vital Protestant principle, viz.,
the divine inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture.52

Disappointingly, there has been a steady drift toward the “dual-fulfillment” theory and

a vague typology even a vague typology of a supposed seventh–century “virgin”and Mary

even among conservative evangelicals among the last century (Hindson names Albert Barnes,

William Beecher, Charles Ellicott, Charles Briggs, Alexander McClaren (!), W. Mueller, H.

Ridderbos, R.V.G. Tasker, and Erich Sauer as examples of this intellectual compromise). 53 But

there have been few stellar Bible scholars and theologians who have mustered spiritual

76

backbone and followed the noble pattern on Ernst Henstengberg, Franz Delitzsch, Joseph

Alexander, and Konrad von Orelli. Notable among these were Robert Dick Wilson and J.

Gresham Machen. Others have also arisen who have firmly defended the ground of the Virgin

Birth prophecy of Isaiah 7:14ff. Thus, next we turn to the more modern (or contemporary)

linguistic and historical reparations to the traditional orthodox belief in the prediction of the

Messiah’s birth.

Seven Irrefutable Reasons The “Immanuel Prophecy” Is A Prophecy !

1. The Historical – Literary Context demands A Prophetic Sense.

After carefully laying out the historical seventh century B.C. background of Isaiah 7:1 –

16, Dr. Edward Hindson makes this initial conclusion:
The poetic structure makes it clear that Ephraim is to fall and within sixty-
five years lose all national distinction, and that Judah will also fall if she does not heed
God’s warning. Here we have the picture, Judah has begun to weaken, but Ahaz refuses
to submit to his northern invaders. But rather than turn to God, he would seek the
support of the Assyrian Empire. It should be remembered that Ahaz was the one who
introduced the pagan Assyrian altar to the temple worship in Jerusalem. He was a man
who had been deliberately disobedient to God. Only such a man could reject the promise
of help from God that was about to be extended to him.

“THEREFORE”

Having renounced Ahaz for trying his and God’s patience by refusing the sign that
had been offered him to assure of God’s blessing , Isaiah connects his statements in verse
13 to verse 14 with the Hebrew particle laken (“therefore”). Its emphasis may be clarified
by such phrases as: “since this is so,” “for these reasons,” “according to such conditions.”
This connective work often was used by the prophets to introduce a divine command or
declaration. Most commentators have not bothered to deal with this word. Young and
Budde, however, stress its relationship to verse 13. They feel it serve to introduce “a sign
of a different character from that which had previously been offered.” Ahaz could have
chosen any sign to attest God’s message of hope as delivered by the prophet, but he
refused and, “therefore,” God will choose His own sign.
The context into which verse 14 fits is unified by the transitory word, “therefore.” The
worried king will not trust in God, so the prophet announces that God will give a sign to
the nation of Judah that will command their trust in Him. Since the line of David is at stake
and later the nation will be removed, the people needed some confidence to trust in God’s
maintaining the throne of David for “ all generations .” It is the sign of Immanuel that com–

77

mands their confidence in God. Isaiah had taken a message of hope to the king, but in
return he will give a sign of eventual doom (to Judah) and of ultimate hope (to the throne
of David).54

More recently, Professor (Dr.) John N. Oswalt (Asbury Seminary) has freshly and

carefully examined the whole context of Isaiah 7 – 12 and makes this immediate caveat:
What all of this says is that all the elements of this unit must be understood in
light of the emphasis on divine trustworthiness and immanence on the people’s behalf
which characterizes the unit. This has a considerable bearing upon the correct
understanding of 7:14. Whatever we might conclude from the paragraph alone, and this
is hardly ambiguous, the larger context points us to an understanding which far
surpasses Ahaz’ own immediate experience. Just as his choice was to have far-reaching
consequences for the kingdom of Judah, so we should expect the mysterious sign to have
significance beyond the immediate historic context as well.
That the sign does have such significance is supported by the conection of children
with both of the messianic prophecies. This is paricularly important with 9:2-7 where the
Messiah's coming is as a child. While the Messiah in 11:1-9 is not specifically called a
child, the childlike qualities ascribed to him (11:3) and the repeated mention of children
leading and playing among previously raven-ous animals (11:6, 8) surely contributes to
the same understanding. Can it be merely coincidence in a segment where the presence
of God among his people is central that Immanuel is a child and the Messiah is a child? I
think not. In fact, there is every reason to believe that the language is intentional in order
to guide the reader to make the association between the two.55

Professor J. Alec Motyer, who has written one of the finest commentaries on Isaiah to

date, likewise lays out the logical alternatives of interpretation with candid precision:
. . . . Isaiah was fully aware of the crucial seriousness of the coming Assyrian
threat—contrary to the political speculations of Ahaz. It was for this reason that he
introduced the second child into the sequence of prophecies (8:1-4), allowing Maher-
shalal-hash-baz to take over from Immanuel the task of providing a time-schedule for the
immediately coming events. Indeed, it is essentially right to see the relationship of these
two children as follows: either we must identify Maher-shalal-hash-baz with Immanuel,
or we must project Immanuel into the undated future. These are real alternatives, but the
first of them is self-evidently impossible.56

2. The Identifications of the Double –Fulfillment Do Not Work !

There is every reason to accept Isaiah 7:14-16 as having to do with a future Immanuel

(Messiah) and no genuine necessity to require an immediate fulfillment of the core prophecy.

This does not mean that Isaiah 8:1-4 is not a valid separate prophecy or recitation of a symbolic

78

prophetic action picturing Yahweh’s visitation of judgment upon the hostile kings of Damascus

and Samaria. Yet, both in Hebrew and in English the sense and reference to “Immanuel” in 8:8-

10 connects the previous immediate historical act of Divine judgment with the promised future

prophetic salvation. There are two prophetic “talking points,” but the primary prophecy is

future and restorative.

A wonderful observation was made by the late Messianic rabbi Sam Stern on the

question of Ahaz’s or Isaiah’s sons being identified with Immanuel:
Regarding the ot [sign or miracle in Hebrew] that God told the house of David
He would give them, Metsidas Zion* states that the almah is haracha b’shanim [young in
years]. *Metsidas Zion and Metsidas David are commentaries on the Prophets and
Writings by Rabbi ben David Altschuller in two parts. Rashi, in his comment quoted
below, also stresses the youth of the almah. He mentions what other commentators say
about the almah who is to bear a child, implying a miraculous birth:

This is the sign: she is a naarah [young girl] and would not be prophesying at
her age, but the Holy Spirit will rest on her…Some say the son is Hezekiah, but
this is impossible because Hezekiah was born nine years before his father [Ahaz]
became king. Some say she was…too young to have a baby. The ot [sign or
miracle] is that the young girl shall bear a child.

In addition, Isaiah’s wife, who is named as the prophetess in Chapter 8, verse, 3, had
already borne a son, Shearjashub [7:3], and would not qualify as the young girl, naarah, that
Rashi calls the almah mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.57

Dr. Charles Feinberg, former Dean and Professor of Old Testament at Talbot Theological

Seminary, summarized the case well in the early 1950s:

The reference is undoubtedly to the virgin Mary, a fact clearly attested by
Matthew 1. Those who cannot interpret ‘almâ as a virgin present a variety of views as to
the identity of the young woman. Some assert it was the consort of Ahaz, any
contemporary young woman, Isaiah’s wife, one of Ahaz’ harem, or a princess of the court
of Ahaz. Manifestly, these do not meet the requirements of the context for a miraculous
occurrence.58

3. An Ordinary Occurrence Does Not Equal the Hebrew .
Most concordances of the Hebrew Old Testament list seventy-nine occurences of `ot

forty-four times in the singular and thirty-five in the plural.59 While many modern critical

79

scholars have endeavored to argue that `owth is not necessarily miraculous, this view is more

self-serving theological rationalization than objectively the standard usage in the Old Testament

itself. According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament:

4. Most of the eighty occurrences of 'ôt refer to "miraculous signs." All the plagues
on the Egyptians are called "signs." In these contexts the complementary word mopet
(q.v.) meaning "wonders" often occurs (Exo 7:3; Deut 4:34; Deut 6:22; Deut 7:19; Deut
26:8; Neh 9:10; Isa 20:3; et al.). This word 'ôt is used in Isaiah's famous prophecy to Ahaz
(Isa 7:11, 14). The shadow's advance on the palace steps was a "sign" for the ailing king
Hezekiah (2Kings 20:9; Isa 38:7). Likewise God showed Gideon a "sign" by igniting the
offered food (Jud 6:17). 60

Perhaps one the finest discussions of this point comes from the pen of Dr. J. Alec Motyer

(former Principal of Bristol College, U.K.). While the quote is lengthy, it is worthwhile to peruse

it:

The Immanuel prophecy is presented as a divinely given ‘sign’. We need to notice
at once the ambivalence of the use of the 'sign' in the Old Testament. Firstly, the sign is
used in the sense of a 'present persuader', i.e. it is designed to promote some action or
reaction in the immediate present. With such signs Moses was sent to the people in Egypt
(Ex. 4:8, 9). With such a sign the false prophet of Deuteronomy 13 would move the
people to adopt his novel theology. Just such a sign was offered to Ahaz (Is. 7:10, 11): a
magnificent divine gesture which would reassure him of the Lord's power and goodwill
and promote policies based on faith in the Lord as thus revealed. The balancing phrases
'ask a sign' (verse 1) and 'the Lord will give you a sign' (verse 14) have led to the
supposition that Immanuel is also a. sign of this order. Is this supposition correct?
The alternative understanding of 'sign' is that it is a 'future confirmation', i.e. it is de-
signed to follow a series of events, to confirm them as acts of God and to fix a stated
interpretation upon them. Exodus 3:12 is a sign of this order. The gathering of Israel on
Sinai seals the divine commission to Moses and confirms as from God the forecast of the
course and significance of the events leading up to the sign.
There is a prima facie case for saying that Immanuel must have been
immediately recognized as a sign of this second order: firstly, because on any
interpretation his birth would be too late to prompt Ahaz to the desired position of faith
in the Lord: the die would have been cast already; and secondly, because his involvement
in a situation yet to come—the desolation of the lands of the treaty powers (verse 16)—
shows that he can only act as a subsequent verification of the present word from God.
We may take this matter further by asking whether, as a sign, Immanuel sets
forth hope or threatening—or, in order to be more exact, whether hope or threatening
occupies the foreground of the prophecy, for if we are speaking of the God of Israel
neither can be wholly absent and certainly hope cannot be omitted.61

80

4. The “Therefore” [ ‫ן‬ ] of Isaiah 7:14 Is Corroborative Evidence !

Not only is the Hebrew word for “sign” vitally important in this text, but even the

specific grammatical introduction is corroborative evidence to the special message of this

pericope. The prophet Isaiah had just renounced King Ahaz for not only frustrating him but for

trying God’s patience by refusing the gracious Divine sign that had just been offered to him. Dr.

Edward Hindson then illustrates the huge signficance of the “Therefore”:

Isaiah connects his statements in verse 13 to verse 14 with the Hebrew particle
laken (“therefore”). Its emphasis may be clarified by such phrases as: "since this is so," "for
these reasons," "according to such conditions." This connective word often was used by
the prophets to introduce a divine command or declaration. Most commentators have not
bothered to deal much with this word. Young and Budde, however, stress its relationship
to verse 13. They feel it serves to introduce a "sign of a different character from that
which had previously been offered." Ahaz could have chosen any sign to attest God's
message of hope as delivered by the prophet, but he refused and, "therefore," God will
choose His own sign.62

Again Charles Feinberg quotes both Jewish scholar Emil M. Kraeling and the nineteenth

century Princeton exegete Joseph A. Alexander to the effect that Isaiah’s language expects

something extraordinary and that an everyday occurrence would be highly improbable in view

of the solemnity with which the prophet spoke of the predicted birth.63 As several interpreters

have noted, laken [Heb., ] is a transitional word which ties the historical encounter of Isaiah

with unbelieving Ahaz to the sublime promise that the Lord (Adonai) gives to Judah. God will

not allow the Davidic line to be obliterated because He had already promised to preserve the

throne of David forever (2 Samuel 7:14ff.; Psalms 72:7-8, 17-20; 89:20-38). Yet, since the faithless

monarch had rejected God’s message of hope, the prophet pronounced upon him and Judah a

sign of immediate doom (i.e., the Assyrian crisis) but for the future a sign of ultimate hope.64

5. The “Behold” of the Prophet is Absolutely Serious (Heb., ).

81

The Hebrew word logically links with ‫ן‬ previously described. Having turned

from the matter of Ahaz’s unbelief and disobedience, the prophet asserts the sovereignty of God

by calling attention to his unique vision of Immanuel. Hinneh is the command which means to

arrest the attention of the hearers.65 The essential thrust of this word is to bring attention to the

significance of what is to follow, i.e., the depiction of the virgin and her son. 66 Since the next

two proofs have to do with the crucial matter of the verbs employed in the Immanuel prophecy

and a discussion of the meaning of “virgin,”, let it simply and firmly be stated that is a

marker of the magnitude and wonder of what Isaiah says about his vision of the virgin and her

child. This is a call to reverently look and perceive a special revelation from Yahweh; it is not a

casual form of communication. Ahaz balked at God’s word of promise, but God decree His

sovereign intent to save anyway !

6. The Hebrew `Almah Most Definitely Means “Virgin” !

Here we repeat this controverted text of 7:14 in the original Hebrew:

It is important to go back to vv. 10-11 to get the immediate context of this declaration.

There the Lord via the noble prophet Isaiah individually addresses Ahaz with a personal

invitation. He is graciously assured that he may ask for a Divine sign of hope and salvation (he

is invited “ to ask for yourself a sign.” Hebr.: and the verb is

in the 2nd person Qal imperative). Then we see in v. 12, Ahaz make a facietious show of piety,

but really a move of disobedience to God’s Word. This then brings us to vv. 13-14 where a

definite transition in both grammar and thought takes place. As was pointed out in point 3

82

above, despite Ahaz’ faithless vacillations the LORD would still set forth a great “sign ” – an

! Yet, this sign would not be for Ahaz alone (certaintly not alone nor even chiefly), but for

“you all” (pl.; Hebr.: ‫ם‬ ). As a corroboration to this point, we have the insight from a classic

Old Testament commentary, Keil and Delitzsch (Isaiah, Vol. 7) as well as the standard parsing

guide for the Old Testament verbs, that it is the Virgin who shall call his name “Immanuel” and

not Ahaz or the court of David in his day [Hebr., .]67 Professor Gordon Franz of the

Associates for Biblical Research states this corroborative fact with exceptional and succinct

force:

The word ‘you’ in verse 14 is plural. In other word, he is no longer talk–
ing to Ahaz, but the whole house of David. The sign of the virgin-born son,
Immanuel, was directed primarily toward Hezekiah in order to encourage him
to trust the Lord. A few years later, when he came to the throne, he initiated a
great revival the first year. His trust was only in the Lord. 68

What then is God’s message to “the house of David” (v. 13, grammatically referenced v.

14)? It is “Therefore the Lord himself will give you [all] a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive

and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel ” (NKJV). It is this point about the virgin

which has historically created more exegetical controversy than almost any verse in the Bible.

As the late Charles L. Feinberg has quipped: “ The storm center of the text, is, of course, the

word `alma (young woman). Reams have been written upon it and, doubtless, reams will be

written on it in the future.”69 Even so, we press on and wish to make four key points about this

`alma :

1. First, she (the virgin or young woman) is marked out with the article in the
Hebrew, she is “the virgin.”70
2. Second, the claim of many (usually, liberal) scholars that had Isaiah actually meant
a real virgin, he would have used betula has been and can be successfully
contested. In actuality, context is crucial for precise in interpretation in either
case.71
3. Third, both the Old Testament and ancient Ugaritic literature support the
translation of “the virgin” over any of the alternatives.72

83

4. Fourth (and finally), a young married or unmarried woman having a baby per se, is
not a miracle and does not fit with the Hebrew meaning of “sign” and the serious
exalted language of this pericope.73

Dr. Edward Hindson has a magnificient summary of the whole matter of “the

Virgin” :

Consider also that the ordinary word for “virgin” (bethulah) does not itself guarantee
by its usage that its referent is in fact always a virgin. In Deuteronomy 22:19 and Joel 1:8
bethulah refers to a married woman. Therefore, the term bethul-ah does not itself give
absolute certainty that the maiden is always a virgin. If Isaiah wished to use a word that
would exactly express his intention, the use of ‘almah would better signify absolute
virginity than would the more common term bethulah. It is quite obvious that if Isaiah
intended to conveys a prediction of the virgin-birth he chose the right word, not an
improper one. There is no "basis for asserting that he should have used another word in
place of ‘almah, for usage indicates that ‘almah was the most correct term to use to signify
an unmarried virgin.74

7. Isaiah’s Vision Is Prophetic and Thus Uses the Vivid Tense.

This may seem like a disproof to the uninitiated, but to Hebrew scholars there is very

little doubt that Isaiah uses a Hebrew construction which compares to the present tense in

English. The A.V., of course, translates the key portion of the text, “ shall conceive and bear a

son ” as do most modern English versions which generally follow its lead. Yet, the fact that in

context the Hebrew perception of the time of action has been demonstrated to be immediate (in

the prophet’s vision) has only strengthened the Messianic interpretation of this verse.75 As

many Hebrew grammarians have pointed out ‫ה‬ , a feminine verbal adjective, should only

be translated as future if it occurs in participle form (when used with hinneh). But here it is

immediately followed by , which is a waw-conjuctive feminine active participle from the

verb yalad (Hebr.: ‫ 67.)דלי‬This means that Isaiah is seeing in his prophetic eye a young maiden

(a virgin) who is already pregnant and ready to bear a son. This is nothing less than a virgin

birth, or else it is a formal logical and historical contradiction. As seen in the previous point, it is

the ‘almah, one who is still a virgin and unmarried who is (or will) bear a child. Thus, the

The special jewish perspective of matthew. the first nativity. part ii. chapter 2.

The special jewish perspective of matthew. the first nativity. part ii. chapter 2.

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie The special jewish perspective of matthew. the first nativity. part ii. chapter 2.

Ähnlich wie The special jewish perspective of matthew. the first nativity. part ii. chapter 2. (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

The special jewish perspective of matthew. the first nativity. part ii. chapter 2.