The Virgin Shall Conceive

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho: a sign common to every first-born son would be no sign. He is a second-century apologist writing to a Jewish interlocutor, and this is among the earliest Christian readings of the prophecy. It bears on the literal sense: what is promised is a sign beyond the common course of nature.

For if He to whom Isaiah referred was not to be begotten of a virgin, of whom did the Holy Spirit declare, ‘Behold, the Lord Himself shall give us a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son?’ For if He also were to be begotten of sexual intercourse, like all other first-born sons, why did God say that He would give a sign which is not common to all the first-born sons?

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, asks what sign there could be if a young woman conceived by a man, as all women do. He wrote against those who denied the true birth of the Lord, and the Church has long counted him among the Fathers. It bears on the literal sense: the sign was given to the house of David and could be wrought by God alone.

But in this that he said, “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign,” he declared an unlooked-for thing with regard to His generation, which could have been accomplished in no other way than by God the Lord of all, God Himself giving a sign in the house of David. For what great thing or what sign should have been in this, that a young woman conceiving by a man should bring forth,—a thing which happens to all women that produce offspring? But since an unlooked-for salvation was to be provided for men through the help of God, so also was the unlooked-for birth from a virgin accomplished; God giving this sign, but man not working it out.

Tertullian, Against Marcion, states the principle that a sign must be a novel and prodigious thing, not a daily occurrence. He wrote against a heretic who denied the reality of the Lord’s flesh. It bears on the literal sense: what the prophet means by a sign.

Now a sign from God would not have been a sign, unless it had been some novel and prodigious thing.

They are, however, refuted by this consideration, that nothing of the nature of a sign can possibly come out of what is a daily occurrence, the pregnancy and child-bearing of a young woman.

Origen, Against Celsus, replies to a pagan critic of the Christian use of the prophecy. He asks which mother is fitting for one called Emmanuel, God with us, and answers that only a pure virgin is. It bears on the literal sense: what the words and the name require.

What kind of sign, then, would that have been—a young woman who was not a virgin giving birth to a child? And which of the two is the more appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (i.e., “God with us”),—whether a woman who has had intercourse with a man, and who has conceived after the manner of women, or one who is still a pure and holy virgin? Surely it is appropriate only to the latter to produce a being at whose birth it is said, “God with us.”

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, instructs candidates for baptism and takes up the objection that the Hebrew word means only a young woman. He sets the sign beside the water from the rock and the dividing of the sea. It bears on the literal sense: the sign promised must be a wonder.

And the sign certainly must be something astonishing. For the water from the rock was a sign, the sea divided, the sun turning back, and the like. But in what I am going to mention there is still more manifest refutation of the Jews. (I know that I am speaking at much length, and that my hearers are wearied: but bear with the fulness of my statements, because it is for Christ’s sake these questions are moved, and they concern no ordinary matters.)

Now as Isaiah spoke this in the reign of Ahaz, and Ahaz reigned only sixteen years, and the prophecy was spoken to him within these years, the objection of the Jews is refuted by the fact that the succeeding king, Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, was twenty-five years old when he began to reign: for as the prophecy is confined within sixteen years, he must have been begotten of Ahaz full nine years before the prophecy. What need then was there to utter the prophecy concerning one who had been already begotten even before the reign of father Ahaz? For he said not, hath conceived, but “ the virgin shall conceive,” speaking as with foreknowledge.

Jerome, a Doctor of the Church and translator of the Vulgate, argues in the Catena Aurea that a sign from the Lord ought to be new and wonderful, which a young woman bearing a child is not. He knew the Hebrew words. It bears on the literal sense: the sign requires a virgin.

Since it is introduced in the Prophet by the words, “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign,” it ought to be something new and wonderful. But if it be, as the Jews will have it, a young woman, or a girl shall bring forth, and not a virgin, what wonder is this, since these are words signifying age and not purity?

Jerome, in the Catena Aurea, examines the Hebrew alma, which he finds can mean both “girl” and “hidden”, one kept from the eyes of men. He was the Doctor of the Church most learned in Hebrew, and he notes the Septuagint rendering. It bears on the literal sense: the meaning of the word.

Indeed the Hebrew word signifying “Virgin” (Bethula) is not used in this place, but instead the word, ‘Halma,’ which except the LXX all render ‘girl.’ But the word, ‘Halma,’ has a twofold meaning; it signifies both ‘girl,’ and ‘hidden;’ therefore ‘Halma’ denotes not only ‘maiden’ or ‘virgin,’ but ‘hidden,’ ‘secret;’ that is, one never exposed to the gaze of men, but kept under close custody by her parents. In the Punic tongue also, which is said to be derived from Hebrew sources, a virgin is properly called ‘Halma.’

Jerome, quoted in the Catena Aurea (the gloss of the Fathers compiled by St. Thomas Aquinas on the Gospels), joins the two horizons of the passage: the child of a virgin of the house of David, and the nearer deliverance from the two hostile kings. It bears on the literal sense: how the name Emmanuel is addressed to Achaz and to the house of David.

This Child, that shall be born of a Virgin of the house of David, shall now be called Emmanuel, that is, God with us, because the events (perhaps delivery from the two hostile kings) will make it appear that you have God present with you. But after He shall be called Jesus, that is, Savior, because He shall save the whole human race. Wonder not, therefore, O house of David, at the newness of this thing, that a Virgin should bring forth a God, seeing He has so great might that though yet to be born after a long while, He delivers you now when you call upon Him.

Petrus Alfonsus, quoted in the Catena Aurea, observes that the prophet says “Hear, O house of David,” and not “Hear, O Achaz”, and that the Lord himself is the giver of the sign. It bears on the literal sense: to whom the promise is spoken.

But though the Prophet was speaking to Ahaz, the prophecy was yet not spoken to him only or of his time only; for it is introduced, “Hear, O house of David;” (Isa 7:13) not, ‘Hear, O Ahaz.’ Again, “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign;” meaning He, and none other; from which we may understand that the Lord Himself should be the sign. And that he says “to you,” (plur.) and not ‘to thee,’ shows that this was not spoken to Ahaz, or on his account only.

Cornelius a Lapide, the Jesuit commentator, takes the offer of a sign in the literal sense as a real offer: heaven or earth to be moved at the king’s choice. He explains the breadth of the offer. It bears on the literal sense: the setting of the prophecy, God offering a proof to a king unwilling to ask.

God therefore offers him through the Prophet a proof by a sign and miracle, as if to say: Ask, for the confirmation of my prophecy and of the truth which I have foretold, namely that you are to be freed and your enemies overthrown, whatever sign you please: do you wish that the earth be split and hell lie open with a great chasm, or that the heavens be opened, or that the sun stand, as it did for Josue, and as I shall do again for your son Ezechias? Say, choose, I will give and effect what you choose.

Lapide, in his Commentary on Isaias, gives the opinion of earlier commentators on why Achaz would not ask for a sign, and sets it against the prophet’s rebuke. It bears on the literal sense: the king’s refusal, which occasions the promise.

Secondly, Forerius and Sanchez think that Achaz, trusting in his wealth and the help of the Assyrians, was unwilling to commit this matter wholly to God, lest he seem to tempt God by a miracle, when he could use human means and aids, by which he thought he would accomplish it. But the king’s impiety and the rebuke of Isaias that follows show that he went further, especially because Achaz easily saw that there was no tempting of God here if he accepted the sign which the Prophet offered freely; he says, therefore, feignedly: “I will not tempt the Lord.”

Lapide argues that Achaz, who despised the signs of God, is not given this one; it is given to his faithful posterity, who will know from the virgin’s bringing forth that the Messias is born. His Isaias draws on the Fathers throughout. It bears on the literal sense: why the sign is for the house of David.

Achaz, a despiser of the signs of God, is unworthy of them; hence not to him but to his future faithful posterity God gives this sign of the Messias to be born, namely the bringing forth of a virgin, so that when they know that she has brought forth, they may know that the Messias is born of this birth. For neither is it fitting that the Messias be born except of a virgin, nor, conversely, that a virgin bear any other than the Messias.

Lapide reads the sixteenth verse as the explanation of the sign: before the child knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land of the two kings shall be forsaken. He follows the order of the prophet’s words. It bears on the literal sense: the nearer deliverance that accompanies the greater.

Hence, explaining and designating this sign, in verse 16 he says: “For before the child (Emmanuel, whom I promise) know to refuse the evil and to choose the good, the land which thou detestest shall be forsaken of the face of her two kings,” as if to say: The sign which I promised in verse 14 I so explain: Syria and Samaria will be left as if desolate, while they are laid waste by the Assyrians: for this devastation will be a sign of the Emmanuel to be born, who shall lay waste the devil and plunder his kingdom.

Lapide, with Jerome and Haymo, notes that Isaias here returns from the child Christ to his own times, and that the name Emmanuel hints at the reason the two kings will fall. It bears on the literal sense: how the prophecy passes between the near deliverance and the Messias.

So St. Jerome and Haymo: see what is said at verse 14: for Isaias returns from the child Christ to his own times. Again, because it hints at the reason why this child is to be called Emmanuel, that is, God strong with us, namely because he will valiantly conquer and lay waste the two kings and the hostile kingdoms.

Haydock’s annotation in the Douay Bible grants that to foretell the sex of a child and his life until the kings fall lay beyond human foresight. It allows that the prophet speaks of a boy of that time who is a figure of Christ. It bears on the literal sense: the two horizons of the verse.

It was indeed above the sagacity of man to declare that the child to be born would be a boy, and live till the kings should be destroyed. But the prophet undoubtedly speaks of Jesus Christ, the wonderful, &c., (chap. ix. 5.) as well as of a boy, who should prefigure him, and be an earnest of the speedy destruction of the two kings.

Haydock’s annotation on Matthew repeats Jerome’s challenge to show the Hebrew alma used of one who is not a virgin, and argues from the circumstances of the text that the sign must be a miracle. It bears on the literal sense: the force of the word.

But St. Jerome tells us that alma signifies a virgin kept close up. Let the Jews, says he, shew me any place in which the Hebrew word alma, is applied to any one that is not a virgin, and I will own my ignorance. Besides the very circumstances in the text of the prophet, are more than a sufficient confutation of this Jewish exposition; for there a sign, or miracle, is promised to Achaz; and what miracle would it be for a young woman to have a child, when she had ceased to be a virgin? (Witham)