The Virgin Birth and Messiahship

0. Introduction

The main question to be considered here is whether the virgin birth disqualifies Jesus of Nazareth from being the Messiah. I shall argue that possibly it does not. It is obvious that "young woman" (almah) in Isaiah 7:14 is mistranslated by Matthew 1:23 as "a virgin" (παρθένος). I will not be making excuses for this mistranslation. The question is merely whether the virgin birth, of itself, would totally disqualify Jesus of Nazareth from being a legal heir to David. 

1. The Problem

The Messiah must be a son of Abraham, descended from the tribe of Judah, a Son of David and Solomon. (Gen. 12:1-3; 49:10) Matthew and Luke both teach that Jesus was born of a virgin. How could Jesus be regarded as the Messiah if he were born of a virgin? It could be argued by some that he was a blood descendant of Solomon by virtue of his mother Mary, but it is by patrilineal descent that tribal membership is passed on according to Jewish law. (Num. 1:18) If there were a man who had no human father whatsoever, then it seems strange that he could have any claim upon the throne of David or upon any tribe. God specifically made a covenant with David and Solomon that their sons would sit upon the throne forever. [2Sam. 7:12-16; 1Chron. 17:11; 22:10; 2Chron 7:18; Psa. 89:29-37; Jeremiah 33:17.] How could Jesus of Nazareth be the Messiah if he had no human father? How could he be the Messiah if he did not inherit the covenant from a human father with royal blood? 

2. Possible Counter-examples

In the Old Testament, God does not always transfer Covenant membership or inheritance by strict patrilineal descent but sometimes by adoption or through daughters and husbands. (Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–12) Jesus of Nazareth inherited the Davidic Covenant legally by virtue of his adoptive father Joseph and through blood descent from his mother Mary. 

(a) Ishmael, was the literal first-born seed of Abraham, yet he did not inherit the covenant promises. (Gen. 25:12-17) Ishmael had the right to the covenant promised by blood but instead, Isaac inherited the birthright because he proved to be faithful to God. (Gen. 21:12) According to strict patrilineal descent and laws of inheritance, it would be through the line of Ishmael that the Abrahamic Covenant was carried on. Instead, he was passed over for a more faithful man, Isaac. 

(b) Esau was the literal first-born seed of Jacob but he did not inherit either the birthright nor the covenant promises. Jacob inherited the birthright which would otherwise have belonged to Esau. (Gen. 32:26-27:36) God made a solemn covenant with Abraham and his seed, yet the promises did not pass through the male first-borns, but to whomever proved faithful to God and his law. This demonstrates that when God made his covenant with Abraham, the fulfillment was not taken to be strictly literal, but whoever was faithful proved to be the true seed of Abraham and was treated as his first-born. Again, Joseph was not the literal first-born of Jacob but received inheritance. (Compare Gen 48:5-6) As the Chronicler says, 

"Now the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-born, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright. Though Judah prevailed over his brothers, and from him came the leader, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph), the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel were Hanoch and Pallu, Hezron and Carmi." (1Chron. 5:1-3)

The Chronicler directly says that those who would have inherited the birthright by patrilineal descent were passed over for those who were faithful. But there are even more examples to be given. 

(c) At Ezra 2:61 and Neh. 7:63 a certain Jew named Barzillai inherited his name from his father in law, Barzillai the Gileadite. In this instance the family name was transferred by marriage and not by strict patrilineal descent.

3. Jewish Interpretations of Isaiah 7:14

The central difficulty of interpreting Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy is that we have no surviving discussions of Jewish interpretation of the text prior to the Christian era but the very fact that this translation exists in the LXX shows that some Jews viewed Isa. 7:14 as a statement about a virgin birth, though there is no indication the LXX translators took this as a Messianic prophecy. Matthew did not invent his mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14, he was merely inheriting it. 

The Hebrew עַלְמָה‎ literally means a young girl of marriageable age. The LXX translators interpreted this as a prophecy of virgin birth because young Israelite brides were expected to be virgins as the Torah says. (Deut. 22:13-30) A form of the substantive is used in 1 Chron. 15:20 and the superscriptions of Psalm. 46:1 and 68:25 which likely signifies use of a female choir or singing in a higher pitch to imitate the voice of a young woman. (compare Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Cant. 1:3; 6:8; Prov. 30:19) Therefore the issue is not over whether the term עַלְמָה‎ literally means virgin, because it does not. To say that Isaiah would have used בְּתוּלָה if he meant a virgin is dubious because this term does not necessarily refer to a virgin either.

אֱלִ֕י כִּבְתוּלָ֥ה חֲגֻרַת־שַׂ֖ק עַל־בַּ֥עַל נְעוּרֶֽיהָ׃ 

"Lament—like a maiden girl with sackcloth For the husband of her youth!" (Joel 1:8)

This passage is an instance where בְּתוּלָה refers to a married woman and not to a virgin. And if one wishes to dispute whether or not a virgin is in mind in Joel 1:8 then we may pass over to Isa. 47:1-9 where בְּתוּלָה is applied to Babylon and yet we are told ‘she weeps over her children,’ and so it cannot mean a virgin here either. There is no Hebrew word in the Bible that exclusively means virgin. To be specific on the matter the author would add such explanatory phrases as "who has never known a man," or "who is untouched." (Num. 31:18) 

The tenses in Isaiah 7:14 also do not support a prophetic interpretation, he does not use the future, he does not say, 'there will be a young woman, who will conceive.' Further, the words were originally spoken to Ahaz to reassure him as Israel was threatened by Ephraim and Syria. (Isa. 7:10-11) Rezin in Aram and Pekah in Israel threatened to invade the land of Judah. The prophet Isaiah was sent to deliver the oracles of God to Ahaz to strengthen him. 

"Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, "Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!" Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a young woman will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." (Isa. 7:10-14) 

The sense being that before the child grows old the political conflict will be solved, when the child is still eating "curds and honey," the threat of invasion will have passed. (Isa. 7:14-16) The promised child could not be Hezekiah, for he was already thirteen years old when this prophecy was given. Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and Isaiah gave this prophecy in the fourth year of his reign, therefore Hezekiah was thirteen at this time. For this reason Jarchi, Ibn Ezra and Radak all reject the interpretation that Hezekiah is the promised child. The primary issue of Isaiah chapter 7 is the preservation of the Davidic dynasty which was threatened to be destroyed by the threat of foreign invasion. 

In Isaiah 7:21 it is said, "Now on that day a man may keep alive a heifer and a pair of sheep." This man is identified with the King Messiah in Bereshit Rabbah 48. Elsewhere in the prophets, we read of the Messianic Prince offering bulls and sheep in the kingdom in the office of high priest. (Ezek. 45:17, 22; 46:2, 4, 12) 

In his commentary on Isa. 9:5-6, Jarchi acknowledges that the passage refers to Immanuel mentioned in Isa. 8:8. Nor could the child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 be a son of Isaiah because Isa. 8:8 says he will be prince of Judah and no son of Isaiah ever was a prince of Judea. The most implausible suggestion is that the child is some unknown child who lived during the days of Ahaz. Hence, the signs mentioned by Isaiah chapters 7 to 9 are meant to address the imminent danger of the Assyrians being faced by king Ahaz, there is no hint in the text that these words look forward to a future Messianic King, despite later interpretations to this effect.