Does Isaiah 7:14 Refer to a Virgin Birth?

The Aish Rabbi Replies

Thank you for your important question. Yes, it is well-known that the actual word in that verse is “almah” – which throughout the Torah refers to a young woman without reference to her virginity, see for example Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, and Song of Songs 1:3. See especially Proverbs 30:19 which refers to “the way of a man with a young woman (almah)” where, as the commentators to Isaiah note, the intent is clearly for a non-virgin – as the verse uses this as an example of an act which leaves no trace. (See Rabbi Tovia Singer’s lecture on this here.) Almah thus parallels the male version of that word, elem, which appears twice in the Torah having nothing to do with a young man’s marital status (I Samuel 17:56, 20:22).

Further, the Torah does have a specific word for a virgin – betulah – which it consistently uses in reference to a woman’s virginity (e.g., Genesis 24:16, Exodus 22:15, Leviticus 21:14, and especially Deuteronomy 22:13-21) – and that is not the word used by Isaiah. Matthew 1:23 claims that Jesus’s immaculate conception was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy that a virgin shall give birth, but it is immediately clear that this is not what Isaiah had in mind.

I will now go through the verse in its full context, and this will demonstrate even more clearly that Isaiah is not alluding to the birth of Jesus. Isaiah had just informed King Ahaz of Judah that the king of Aram and the king of Israel (i.e., the Northern Kingdom, Samaria) were poised to attack Judah but that their campaign would be unsuccessful. As a sign that Isaiah’s prophecy would come true, he offers a more immediate prophecy – and the fact that the first prophecy would be fulfilled would be proof that the second would as well. That sign is the subject of version 14: “Behold the maiden is pregnant; she will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel.” Isaiah thus refers to “the maiden” – clearly someone before them whom he could directly identify. The more immediate sign is thus that the pregnant woman before them will have a boy (and not a girl) and that she will name him Emmanuel, meaning “God is with us” – implying God would save the nation. (Clearly, the woman was not close enough to hear his prediction. The commentator Rashi adds that she was no prophet herself and surely wasn’t told by God to give her baby such a name.) And further, as verses 15-16 continue, that lad will enjoy a life a plenty from his youth – i.e., he will not live in a country ravaged by war – because the two kingdoms who threaten you will themselves be abandoned.

Isaiah is thus clearly referring to a contemporary woman (the commentators debate if she was Isaiah’s wife or Ahaz’s – see Rashi and Radak) who would give birth in the very near future. He couldn’t possibly be referring to Mary who would not live for hundreds of years – and who would not bear a son till long after the battle Isaiah was referring to. (Again, Isaiah’s prediction of the baby’s birth was to serve as an earlier proof that his later prediction would also come true.)

Furthermore, there is no indication that Isaiah has in mind the Messiah’s birth – regarding which he makes no mention at all. (Some Christians attempt to claim that this is actually a “double prophecy” – referring both to a closer event and a more distant one. But such is really a forced interpretation of fairly straightforward verses.) Lastly, the entire episode is supposed to be a sign verifying Isaiah’s prediction. If his point were that a virgin would miraculously have a baby, how could that be a sign? No one actually knows if a given woman is a virgin or not!

(In truth, one of the main commentators does interpret the word “pregnant” to mean that the woman will become pregnant – rather than being pregnant already (see Rashi there; all the others disagree). The word “harah” is actually most likely an adjective meaning “pregnant”, so it doesn’t give a clear indication whether it goes with a present or future [understood] verb. Either way, Isaiah is clearly referring to a contemporary woman who would bear a child quite soon – not Mother Mary who wouldn’t live until several centuries later.)

As a final aside, I’m not a fan of debating Christians, attempting to prove to them that we’re right and they’re misinterpreting our Torah. As strongly as I feel that is so, making such a case to them does little to foster Jewish-Christian relations. There are so many important values we do share and can build on, whereas almost nothing is gained harping on our very well-known differences. So try to be on good terms with your Christian friends, maintaining a respectful distance regarding your theological disagreements. But if you are pressed to defend yourself (or to just to be surer of your beliefs yourself), a little honest study of those verses should make it evidently clear that Isaiah’s prophecies have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.