Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth?

Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth?              By Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Girzhel

Discover how Matthew understood the prophecy of Isaiah.

Picture a sacred text sparking a fiery debate that echoes through millennia, dividing two great faiths. A single verse from the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 7:14, stands at the center of this debate. Christians interpret this verse as a divine promise of Jesus’ virgin birth (though not only), which is a cornerstone of the New Covenant faith; however, Jewish scholars contend that it has been misunderstood and its meaning distorted by translation and time. Where does the truth lie? Let’s unravel this mystery together. You will be pleasantly surprised.

The verse in question reads in the original Hebrew:

לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם–אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל

Christian Bibles, such as the NASB, translate this as:

“Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel.” (Isa 7:14, NASB)

In Jewish translations, the meaning is different:

“Therefore, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isa 7:14, JPS)

The Gospel of Matthew explicitly connects this verse to the birth of Jesus:

“Now all this took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: ‘Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they shall name Him Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with us.’” (Mat 1:22-23)

Objection to such an interpretation by Matthew is twofold. First, the prophecy had to do with an event that was supposed to take place 700-800 years before Jesus. Second, Matthew uses the wrong translation, “virgin,” that should otherwise be translated as “young woman.”

First Objection

The prophecy was given to King Ahaz of Judah (c. 735–715 BCE) during the Syro-Ephraimite War, when Judah faced invasion from Syria (Aram) and Israel (Ephraim). Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel attacked Jerusalem but failed (Isaiah 7:1). The sign was meant for Ahaz’s immediate crisis, not 700–800 years later (Jesus’ era). The child (possibly Isaiah’s son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in Isaiah 8 or Hezekiah) symbolized God’s deliverance soon after. Some interpreters argue that the prophecy shifts back and forth between Ahaz’s own time and the time of Jesus because Hebrew switches from singular you (King Ahaz) to plural you (House of David). Among other suggestions is the idea that Isaiah foresaw a dual fulfillment: There was a fulfillment within the lifetime of King Ahaz and then another one in the time of Christ. But do these explanations accurately reflect Matthew’s understanding of Jewish prophecy?

Matthew’s Interpretive Method

Today, we often view prophecy as mere prediction, but ancient Israelites saw it differently: prophets were God’s messengers, delivering divine words to address their people’s immediate circumstances. To illustrate this, consider how Matthew, in a seemingly unrelated case, connects Jesus’ return from Egypt to the ancient words of the prophet Hosea, revealing a deeper, non-predictive approach to prophecy.

“He remained there until the death of Herod; this was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON.'” (Mat 2:15)

We can clearly see that Hosea was not predicting the future but was contemplating the past. Through Hosea, God spoke about the children of Israel and reminded them how he delivered them out of Egypt in the past: “When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.” (Hos 11:1)

Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”) refers historically to Israel’s exodus from Egypt (not a prediction). Matthew applies it typologically to Jesus’ flight to Egypt, seeing Jesus as the ultimate “son” paralleling Israel. This is a common New Testament technique (typology or analogy)

Second Objection

Let us now address a more nuanced—but no less significant—objection. Jewish scholars often contend that the word translated as “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 should under no circumstances be rendered as such, as its meaning is the more general “young woman.” They argue that had Isaiah intended to specify “virgin,” he would have used the word בְּתוּלָה (betulah) instead of עַלְמָה (almah).

In the remaining discussion, I will argue that Biblical Hebrew uses three main words, which can essentially mean both “young woman” and “virgin” depending on the context and other factors. These words are almah, naarah, and betulah.

• • Almah (עַלְמָה) is primarily “young woman” (of marriageable age), often implying virginity due to cultural norms, but not explicitly. This is the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14.

  • 
    

  • Na’arah (נַעֲרָה) is generally defined as a young female, typically a teen or preteen, also without explicit reference to sexual status, but often presumed to be a virgin due to her age.

  • 
    

  • Betulah (בְּתוּלָה) is usually understood as a young woman who is presumed a virgin but usually requires qualification (she is a virgin who “has not known a man.)” Deuteronomy 22:13-21 speaks of btulim (בְּתוּלִים) as “tokens of virginity.”

  • 
    

There is a very important text that we need to consider that mentions all three and applies them all to one and the same person—Rebecca. We read a description of Rebecca, the future wife of Isaac, who is referred to as a young virgin:

“The young woman (נַעֲרָה) was very beautiful, a virgin (בְּתוּלָ֕ה), and no man had had relations with her (וְאִ֖ישׁ לֹ֣א יְדָעָ֑הּ)” (Genesis 24:16, NASB)

Then Abraham’s servant testifies to the content of his prayer to identify Isaac’s wife, which actually refers to Rebecca as almah (הָֽעַלְמָה֙). We read: “…behold, I am standing by the spring, and may it be that the young woman/young unmarried woman (הָֽעַלְמָה֙) who comes out to draw water…” (Genesis 24:43, NASB) Here, in one chapter, we see that Rebecca is referred to with all three words mentioned above: na‘arah, betulah, and almah! Just as in Isaiah 7:14, the young woman (almah) here is presumed to be a virgin.

The Old Greek Bible (LXX)

The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek pre-Christian translation of the Hebrew Bible, renders the Hebrew word almah (עַלְמָה) in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos (παρθένος), which typically (though not always) means “virgin” in Greek. However, the LXX also employs parthenos in a somewhat flexible manner. Most of the time it means virgin, but in a minority of cases it does not. The same word, parthenos (παρθένος), is used to translate betulah in Genesis 24:16 and Joel 1:8; and almah in Genesis 24:43. This indicates that “parthenos” may denote a young, unmarried woman, frequently assumed to be a virgin, in accordance with cultural context.

Matthew’s use of parthenos in quoting Isaiah 7:14 (Matthew 1:23) reflects this broader LXX usage, supporting the Christian interpretation of a virgin birth while not strictly contradicting almah’s range of meaning. The choice of parthenos in the LXX thus bridges Hebrew and Greek contexts, contributing to the theological significance of the verse in early Christianity.

Why not in the earliest Gospel? Among the synoptic gospels, the Gospel of Mark is widely believed to be the earliest written and is traditionally attributed to John Mark, who recorded the testimony of the Apostle Peter. The virgin birth is not mentioned in this earliest Gospel (Mark 1:1–11, which begins with Jesus’ baptism and ministry). It is possible that when Mark was written, knowledge of this intimate detail was not yet widely known. 

The Apostle Paul, whose writings are listed in our Bibles as following the gospels but chronologically predate them according to the likely date of composition, does not explicitly mention the virgin birth in his epistles, focusing instead on Jesus’ death, resurrection, and divine sonship, with phrases like “born of a woman” in Galatians 4:4 and “born of the seed of David” in Romans 1:3-4 being general and not indicating or excluding a virgin birth.

His silence suggests he may have been unaware of the virgin birth, considered it irrelevant to his theology, or assumed it was known, leaving it uncertain whether he knew of the virgin birth as later described in the Gospels.

The Gospels of Luke and Matthew alone provide strong testimony to the virgin birth (Luke 1:26–38; Matt. 1:18–25). The most logical explanation is that the author of Luke, through careful research into the events of Jesus’ life (Luke 1:1–4), likely interviewed or drew from sources close to Jesus’ mother, Mary, or from Mary herself. This reconstruction explains why Luke’s Gospel contains the most extensive material related to Mary, including the Annunciation (Luke 1:26–38), her visit to Elizabeth (Luke 1:39–56), and the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55), absent in other gospels.

Conclusion

To address the original question posed by this essay—Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth?—the answer is both yes and no. (welcome into Jewish space where there is seldom only one correct answer).

Isaiah did seek to predict the future in an oracle-like manner when he spoke to Ahaz. A sign fulfilled 700–800 years later would not have been relevant, as Ahaz needed assistance with his contemporary crisis. Matthew meant that Isaiah’s prophecy was filled with new meaning in the light of Jesus’s events and in this sense—fulfilled.

Far from erring or relying on a flawed translation, the author of the Gospel of Matthew deliberately used the Septuagint’s rendering of almah (עַלְמָה) as parthenos (παρθένος), a Greek term that most often connotes virginity, especially in cultural contexts where young, unmarried women are.

He and his early Jewish Christian/Messianic Jewish community were in agreement with the pre-Christian Septuagint (LXX) that Isaiah 7:14 should be best translated as, “Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel.”