Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth of Christ?

This theory contains so many flaws that it is difficult to know where to begin in refuting it. It can be traced ultimately back to the second century A.D., when it was employed by those who repudiated the concept of predictive prophecy that pointed to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.

It has been filtered down, revised, and refined over the years, so that some Christians now parrot the theory — though they haven’t a clue that the contemporary
young-woman" theory is born from the womb of skepticism.

Briefly, we note the following points.

The Background of the Prophecy

When the kingdom of Judah was threatened by a confederation of enemies from the north, King Ahaz was terrified. God sent the prophet Isaiah to calm the king.

The prophet declared that the evil forces would not prevail. Ahaz was encouraged to “ask for a sign” (i.e., a miracle from God) confirming that this word of consolation was accurate. But the stubborn king refused.

Isaiah then directed his attention to the “house of David.” He promised a much greater sign, namely, “the virgin” would conceive and bear a son, whose name “Immanuel” would signify “God is with us.”

Then, Isaiah refocused his attention on the current geopolitical circumstances. He highlights the timeframe it would take for the Immanuel child to reach the age of accountability, which was used as a chronological measurement. Before that amount of time expired, Judah’s current threat would dissipate. This, in fact, is what came to pass.

More importantly, however, was the fact that a much greater deliverance was needed in Israel, and such would be provided by the actual arrival of Immanuel — who is Jesus Christ.

A “Sign” Is Prophesied

This prophesied event is designated as a “sign,” a term that is a point of controversy.

While the word itself does not demand a miracle on a strictly etymological basis, a word is defined by more than etymology alone. General usage and context (both immediate and remote) must be taken into account.

The immediate context does suggest a miracle. The king had been challenged to ask for a sign — either “in the depth, or in the height above” (Is. 7:11). This indicates something phenomenal.

Ahaz refused the proffered sign, claiming that it would tempt Jehovah, again hinting at the supernatural.

Additionally, Matthew’s inspired interpretation of the passage clearly establishes the miraculous nature of the prediction (Mt. 1:22-23).

There is no evidence at all that there was a miraculous birth to a virgin in the days of Isaiah.

The Sign of a Virgin

The Hebrew word rendered “virgin” is almah. It is the only biblical word that truly signifies a virgin. Professor William Beck, who researched this matter with great precision, declared:

I have searched exhaustively for instances in which almah might mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage where almah is not a virgin. Nowhere in the Bible or elsewhere does almah mean anything but a virgin (1967, 6)

Robert Dick Wilson, the incomparable Hebrew scholar who was proficient in forty-five biblically-related languages, declared that almah “never meant ‘young married woman,’” and that common law presumes that every almah is virtuous, unless she can be proved not to be (1926, 316).

Even the Jewish scholar, Cyrus H. Gordon, who made some of the archaeological discoveries at Ras Shamra, conceded that recent archaeological evidence confirms that almah means “virgin” (1953, 106).

The notion that almah merely signifies a “young woman” was first argued by the anti-Christian Jew, Trypho, in the mid-second century A.D (Justin Martyr, 67).

The Virgin Shall Conceive

Isaiah’s text plainly says “the virgin” (note the definite article, denoting a specific virgin) “shall conceive.” The passage does not speak of a virgin who would marry (thus surrendering her virginity) and then conceive. She conceives as a virgin.

If this alluded to some contemporary of Isaiah, who was his mysterious lady? Were there two virgin births — one in Isaiah’s day and another involving Jesus? There is no credibility to this view.

Additionally, the virgin’s child was to be called “Immanuel,” which signifies “God is with us.” If this name applied to a child in Isaiah’s day, who was this elusive youngster? He seems to have vanished as soon as he was born!

Was Matthew Mistaken?

The suggestion that some make, that Matthew took Isaiah’s text and gave it an application alien to its original meaning, is unworthy of a correct view of Biblical inspiration.

Preachers today who take a text, extract it from its context, and use it as a mere pretext for points they wish to establish are strongly chastised, and their credibility is compromised.

Yet men, under the sway of modernism (whether they are aware of it or not), do not hesitate to so implicate God’s inspired apostle in the case of the virgin birth. This is a shameful circumstance.

What Is the Historical Evidence?

The church fathers were unanimous in their belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, and Isaiah 7:14 was cited as an Old Testament prophetic proof text.

For example, Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202) wrote:

Wherefore also the Lord Himself gave us a sign, in the depth below, and in the height above, which man did not ask for, because he never expected that a virgin could conceive, or that it was possible that one remaining a virgin could bring forth a son, and that what was thus born should be “God with us”? (19.3)

Early Scholarship, Modernism’s Influence

Earlier scholars of Christendom (e.g., Calvin, Lowth, Gill, Henry, Clarke, Alexander, Hengstenberg) argued that Isaiah 7:14 was exclusively messianic in its meaning.

In the mid-nineteenth century, however, as the influence of German rationalism (modernism) became apparent in both Europe and the United States, even writers generally considered conservative began to wilt under the pressure.

They thus suggested that perhaps Matthew only applied Isaiah’s text to the circumstances when, in reality, there was a primary application to a “young woman” of Isaiah’s day.

Edward J. Young’s masterful, three-volume set on the book of Isaiah (Eerdmans, 1965) was driven by a desire to refute this compromising drift — to which even some in the Lord’s family have fallen victim.

There is no reason for the Lord’s people to resort to such textual manipulations when dealing with the biblical evidence for the Savior’s birth.

For further study, see my chapters in “The Living Messages of the Books of the Old Testament (Isaiah)” and “The Living Messages of the Books of the New Testament (Matthew)” in the Spiritual Sword Lectureship books (1977 and 1976, respectively).

See also the small volume by Prof. Edward E. Hinson, Isaiah’s Immanuel (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1978). It is a valuable resource.