Virgin Birth

Dear class,

Sorry...still recovering from illness. Lagging behind somewhat...

On Thursday, we read form Isaiah 7,8 and Mark 3:1-19.

Isaiah 7:14-16 seem to present one of the greatest "controversies" in the bible.
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Firstly, there are people who would contend that the word "virgin" does not necessarily signify a women who has not known any man but just a young woman.
It is true that the orignal Hebrew word almah, is possibly used in the sense of a maid or damsel, but it is always with the indication of an unmarried, chaste woman. Further, when we examine the context of this being a "sign", what is so significant if the birth had been of conventional circumstance? Moreover, this prophecy is an obvious allusion to the birth of Christ, which we find fulfilled in Mat 1:23. While the use in Hebrew may leave room for misinterpretation, there is no mistake in the word used in Greek, which indicates an unmarried women. And if anyone would still like to split hair, the account in Luk 1:34 nails the door of contention shut.
Brethren, the problem here is not with the words but with the mindset of men bent on discrediting the miracle of God! This was a plain and simple prophecy of the manner which Jesus, deity, was to come into this earth, and plain and simply fulfilled 700 plus years later as an infallible proof of God's promise to mankind.

Secondly, the matter seems to be "complicated" by affirming the definition of "virgin" as an "unmarried chaste woman" and even to link the prophecy to the birth of Christ.
If we look at the context locally, Isaiah had been instructed to prophesy to king Ahaz and also to the "house of David". The complication comes in v.16 where the prophecy suddenly turns much nearer to the times then.
Were there 2 virgin births? One near that time and another of Christ? What's so special then about the birth of Christ?
Or was the first a normal birth and there was no link to the birth of the Messiah? Then what's so special about the sign? Couldn't it be the birth of any child?

This is a similar "predicament" we see when we discussed Mat 24 about the 2nd coming of Christ.
There are in fact 2 prophecies with 2 separate fulfilments. Notice that Isaiah was asked to bring along his son Shearjashub (v.3) to meet Ahaz. Then we notice the wording in v.14 and 15. It begins with "a son" and thereafter, "he" is used. But in v.16, Isaiah suddenly uses "the child". The most logical explanation was that Isaiah had went on to prophesy of a relatively recent event using his son, by his side, as reference.

So there we have it -  a first Messianic prophecy in v.14,15, fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ, directed in a broad sense to Judah and a second local prophecy of the fall of Israel to Assyria from v.16, directed to Ahaz."he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." was the transition phrase that linked the 2 poetically. To Christ, it meant His sinless life. To Isaiah's son, it signified the proximity of events that were to occur.

For us today, it remains a blessed comfort that Christ was born of a virgin, as purposed by God and suffered and died for our sins, that we might one day be reconciled to our Father in heaven.

in Him
Paul

--
But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. ~ Hebrews 3:13

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. ~ Romans 5:8