A Defense of the Virgin Birth Prophecy (Isaiah 7:14)

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

This well-known verse is frequently read during the Christmas season, yet an important question remains: how many Christians accept the passage as it stands in its traditional English translation? A number of modern Bible versions reject the rendering of the term “virgin,” substituting “maiden” or “young woman” in its place (e.g., RSV, NRSV), or relegating these alternatives to a footnote while retaining “virgin” in the text (e.g., NIV, NASB, ASV).

The most common objection to translating Isaiah 7:14 with the word “virgin” is the claim that the Hebrew term employed does not inherently denote virginity. The word used by Isaiah is עַלְמָה (‘almah), while critics argue that the proper Hebrew term for a virgin is בְּתוּלָה (bethulah). In response to this claim, Edward J. Young offers the following observation:

At the outset we may confidently assert that the word ‘almah is never employed of a married woman….

Often it has been said that had the prophet desired to designate the mother as a virgin, there was at his disposal the word b^ethulah. At first sight this might seem to be a perfectly good word; upon closer examination, however, it proves to be most unsatisfactory. True enough, b^ethulah may designate a virgin, but it may also refer to a betrothed virgin (b^ethulah m^e’orasah). In Deuteronomy the laws make clear that betrayal of the state of betrothal was a heinous as adultery and punishable with death. In Joel 1:8 the b^ethulah is clearly a married woman, and in later Aramaic incantation texts, the Aramaic equivalent of b^ethulah refers to a married woman. If Isaiah had used this word b^ethulah, he would have left us in confusion. We would not have known precisely what he had in mind. Would he have been speaking of one who was truly a virgin or would he have had in mind one who was betrothed or one who was actually a wife? In the light of these considerations it appears that Isaiah’s choice of ‘almah was deliberate. It seems to be the only word in the language with unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman.¹⁾Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand Rapids, MI: 1965), Vol. 1, pp. 287-288

Young’s analysis accurately reflects the semantic complexity of the Hebrew terminology, though his reference to Joel 1:8 warrants clarification. Joel 1:8 reads: “Lament like a virgin [bethulah] girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth.” Here, bethulah is translated as “virgin,” yet the woman is described as having had a husband. At first glance, this may appear contradictory; however, it is essential to understand that in ancient Jewish culture, betrothal was legally binding and regarded as tantamount to marriage. Engagements could be dissolved only through formal divorce proceedings.

The Mishnah provides extensive evidence of this cultural understanding:

• “Three months [of her widowhood] must pass by before the wife of the deceased brother may perform halitzah or contract levirate marriage. So, too, other widows mat not [again] be betrothed or married before three months have passed, whether they are virgins or not virgins, whether they are divorced or widows, whether they were married or [only] betrothed.”(brackets in original)²⁾Yebamoth 4.10; in The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p.224
• “A High Priest may not marry a widow whether she had become a widow after betrothal or after wedlock…”³⁾Yebamoth 6.4; The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 227
• “The Ketubah of a virgin who after betrothal [only] became a widow or was divorced or performed halitzah is 200 denars, and a virginity suit may be lodged against her.”(brackets in original)⁴⁾Ketuboth 1.2; The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 245
• “If a man gave his daughter in betrothal and she was divorced, or if he gave her in betrothal and she was left a widow, he Ketubah falls to him.”⁵⁾Ketuboth 4.2; The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 249

These statements clearly demonstrate that a woman could be divorced or widowed while still retaining her virginity if the marriage had not been consummated. Although the Mishnah postdates the New Testament period, earlier literary evidence confirms the same conceptual framework. The apocryphal book of Tobit records:

“It came to pass the same day, that in Ecbatane a city of Media Sara the daughter of Raguel was also reproached by her father’s maids; because that she had been married to seven husbands, whom Asmodeus the evil spirit had killed, before they had lain with her.”⁶⁾Tobit 3:7-8; in The Apocrypha (ed. Manuel Komroff), Barnes & Noble Books (New York, NY: 1992), p. 78

In this pre–New Testament narrative, Sara is described as having been widowed seven times while nevertheless remaining a virgin. Such evidence demonstrates that bethulah could refer to a woman who was legally married or betrothed without implying sexual experience. Consequently, Isaiah’s use of ‘almah in Isaiah 7:14 appears deliberate and precise, avoiding the ambiguity inherent in bethulah and conveying the notion of an unmarried woman whose virginity is presupposed.

Even prior to the composition of Tobit, Scripture itself addresses a betrothed woman as a man’s wife. Deuteronomy 22:23 states, “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband….” Here, the woman is explicitly identified as both a “virgin” and as belonging to a husband by virtue of betrothal. The remainder of the passage (Deuteronomy 22:23–24) prescribes the death penalty should she be caught committing adultery—precisely the same judgment imposed upon a married woman guilty of the same offense (Deuteronomy 22:22). In this legal context, the term בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) is clearly used of a woman who, though legally bound to a husband, remains sexually untouched.

In the same chapter, the term bethulah is likewise employed in a context where the woman is demonstrably no longer a virgin. Concerning a woman who is not betrothed and is raped, the law states: “and they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days” (Deuteronomy 22:19). Here, the woman is called a “virgin” (bethulah) despite the fact that she has been violated, demonstrating that the term does not intrinsically denote sexual purity. Similarly, in Lamentations 5:11, the word bethulah cannot possibly signify “virgin”: “They ravished the women in Zion, and the maids in the cities of Judah.” The term translated “maids” is bethulah, yet these women are explicitly said to have been ravished by the invading Babylonian forces. When bethulah is used unambiguously to describe a virgin, Scripture supplies clarifying language. For example, Genesis 24:16 states: “And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her.” The explanatory phrase is necessary precisely because bethulah itself does not inherently denote virginity.

This understanding is corroborated by later Jewish lexical and legal sources. Marcus Jastrow defines bethulah in Rabbinic Hebrew as “(in a legal sense) a girl between twelve and twelve and a half years is meant[.]”⁷⁾Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Judaica Press, Inc. (New York, NY: 1971, 1996), p. 200 The Mishnah further explains: “Who is accounted a bethlah? She that has never yet suffered a flow, even though she was married.”⁸⁾Niddah 1.4; The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 745 Since marriage in Jewish law includes betrothal, this definition confirms that bethulah refers primarily to age and physiological status rather than sexual experience. Accordingly, Edward Young’s conclusion—that ‘almah is the most precise term available to convey virginity—is correct. The claim that bethulah is the definitive Hebrew term for “virgin” is therefore linguistically and contextually unsustainable.

Further confirmation arises from the ancient Jewish translators of the Septuagint, produced in the third century B.C. These scholars rendered ‘almah in Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek word παρθένος (parthenos), a term that properly denotes a virgin. Their translation demonstrates that ‘almah was understood within pre-Christian Judaism to signify virginity. Matthew follows this same usage when he cites Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23, employing parthenos. Moreover, Matthew emphasizes Mary’s virginity repeatedly (Matthew 1:18, 20, 23, 25). Luke likewise underscores this point by using parthenos twice in a single verse: “a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” (Luke 1:27). The inspired New Testament authors thus leave no ambiguity regarding the meaning of ‘almah.

The broader context of Isaiah 7 further refutes the claim that the prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah’s own day. While Isaiah initially offers King Ahaz a sign (Isaiah 7:11), Ahaz refuses (Isaiah 7:12). Isaiah then redirects the promise away from Ahaz personally, declaring, “Hear ye now, O house of David” (Isaiah 7:13). Both the pronoun “ye” and the phrase “house of David” identify a plurality. Consequently, when Isaiah proclaims, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign” (Isaiah 7:14), the sign is directed to the Davidic dynasty, not to Ahaz or Isaiah individually. Moreover, the nature of a “sign” necessitates something miraculous, not an ordinary birth. The child’s name, “Immanuel” (“God with us”), and the declaration that the land belongs to him (Isaiah 8:8)—a claim reserved for Jehovah alone, who says, “the land is mine” (Leviticus 25:23)—confirm the divine identity of the child. This same child is later called “the mighty God, The everlasting Father,” upon whose shoulders the government rests (Isaiah 9:6). Isaiah 7:14, therefore, cannot be reduced to a local or dual fulfillment; it speaks of the incarnation of the eternal God.

A virgin birth also coheres logically with the doctrine of pre-existence. Jesus Himself declared, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). A natural conception would provide no credible sign of pre-existence, whereas a virgin birth uniquely testifies to divine origin. Notably, ancient Jewish literature—both prior to and following the rise of Christianity—reflects an expectation of a pre-existing Messiah. For example, 1 Enoch speaks of the pre-existent “Son of Man”:

• “At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the time before time. And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one—from among the angels—who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, ‘Who is this, and from whence is he who is going as the prototype of the Before-Time?’ And he answered me and said to me, ‘This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of Spirits in eternal uprightness.”⁹⁾1 Enoch 46.1-3; The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 34
• “At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the sun and moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of Spirits.”¹⁰⁾1 Enoch 48.2-3; The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 35
• “For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One preserved him in the presence of his power; then he revealed him to the holy and the elect ones.”¹¹⁾1 Enoch 62.7; The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 43

Similarly, 4 Ezra describes the Messiah as one who has been “kept” until the appointed time of revelation:

• “this is the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of David, and will come and speak to them; he will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wickedness, and will cast up before them their contemptuous dealings.”¹²⁾4 Ezra 12.32; The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 550
• “this is he whom the Most high has been keeping for many ages, who will himself deliver his creation; and he will direct those who are left.”¹³⁾4 Ezra 13.26; The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 552
• “And when these things come to pass and the signs occur which I showed you before, then my son will be revealed, whom you saw as a man coming up from the sea.”¹⁴⁾4 Ezra 13.32; The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 552
• “He said to me, ‘Just as no one can explore or know what is in the depth of the sea, so no one on earth can see my Son or those who are with him, except in the time of his day.”¹⁵⁾4 Ezra 13.52; The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 553

Later Rabbinic tradition echoes this theme. Pesikta Rabbati teaches:

• “But where is the proof that the king Messiah existed before the beginning of God’s creation of the world? The proof is in the verse And the spirit of God moved, words which identify the king Messiah, of whom it is said, “And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him” (Isa. 11.2).”¹⁶⁾Piska 33.6; Pesikta Rabbati (trans. William G. Braude), Yale University Press (Dallas TX: 1968), Vol. 2, pp. 642-643
• “What is meant by in Thy light do we see light? [Psalm 36:9] What light is it that the congregation of Israel looks for as from a watchtower? It is the light of the Messiah, of which it is said And God saw the light that it was good (Gen. 1:4). This verse proves that the Holy One, blessed be He, contemplated the Messiah and his works before the world was created, and then under His throne of glory put away His Messiah until the time of the generation in which he will appear.”¹⁷⁾Piska 36.1; Pesikta Rabbati (trans. William G. Braude), Yale University Press (Dallas TX: 1968), Vol. 2, p. 677

Thus, ancient Judaism consistently affirmed a pre-existing Messiah, concealed until the appointed generation of revelation. In this theological framework, no sign could more fittingly attest to such a Messiah than a virgin birth. This is precisely the sign Isaiah gave to the house of David, and it was fulfilled uniquely and definitively in the person of Jesus Christ.