1. Isaiah 7:14

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; Behold, a [the] virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14)Christians have long interpreted this passage as referring to the birth of Christ, based on the New Testament writings which declare that Jesus was born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35).

Jewish Objections

The Jewish objections to this verse are fourfold. A) The word translated “virgin” is the Hebrew word “almah” and it is mistranslated. It does not mean “virgin” but rather “young woman”. B) The context of the prophecy refers to the time period of King Ahaz, not to Jesus who lived 600 years later. C) Jesus was not given the name Immanuel, as the verse declares. D) This “virgin myth,” comes from Greek and Roman legends, not the Hebrew Scriptures.

A. “The word translated “virgin” is the Hebrew word “almah” and it is mistranslated.”

Isaac Troki supports the first argument:“The word “almah” (young woman) used in this verse, does not mean a virgin, as they (Christians) maintain, but signifies merely young woman.” 8Passages such as Genesis 19:14, Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, do reveal that “almah” can and does refer to a “young woman of marriageable age” and not strictly to “a virgin.” On this point, the Jewish scholars base their case.

Gerald Sigal continues this theme:“The Hebrew for virgin is ‘bethulah.’ The Torah clearly indicates the unequivocal meaning to be ‘a virgin,’ Leviticus 21:14, Deuteronomy 22:15-19, 23,28. The word ‘bethulah’ is used in an explicit legal sense leaving no question as to its meaning. While ‘almah’ does not define the state of virginity of a woman, ‘bethulah,’ by contrast, does. One would, therefore, reasonably expect that if Isaiah 7:14 refers specifically to a virgin, the prophet would have used the technical term ‘bethulah’ so as to leave no doubt as to the significance of his words”. 9

The answer to this assertion is that both of these Hebrew words, “almah” and “bethulah” do convey the meaning of “virgin,” and the word “almah” is the best word to be used in the context of Isaiah 7:14.Scholar Franz Delitzsch qualifies these two words:“‘Bethulah’ signifies a maiden living in seclusion in her parents’ house and still a long way from matrimony; ‘almah’ is applied to one fully mature, and approaching the time of her marriage”. 10

Arthur W. Kac gives further information regarding this. “According to Cyrus H. Gordon, eminent Jewish scholar in Semitics, the commonly held view that ‘virgin’ is Christian, whereas ‘young woman’ is Jewish, is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes ‘almah’ to mean, ‘virgin’ here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. Little purpose would be served in repeating the learned expositions that Hebraists have already contributed in their attempt to clarify the point at issue. It all boils down to this: the distinctive Hebrew word for virgin is ‘bethulah,’ whereas ‘almah’ means a ‘young woman,’ who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily so. Dr. Gordon cites an excerpt from one of the recently discovered Ugarit texts dating back to around 1400 BC, celebrating the marriage of male and female lunar deities. In this particular text there is a prediction that the lunar goddess will bear a son. In one sentence the bride is called by a word which is the exact etymological counterpart of the Hebrew ‘almah’; in another sentence she is called by the etymological counterpart of the Hebrew ‘bethulah.’ ‘Therefore,’ Dr. Gordon concluded, ‘the New Testament rendering of ‘almah’ as virgin for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet.” 11

There is also evidence that the word “bethulah,” does not always definitely and consistently refer to a virgin or a pure, unmarried maiden in the Scriptures. In Joes 1:8, “Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth.” Here the word “virgin” is “bethulah,” and refers to a married maiden. While it is true that in many cases the word “bethulah does refer to “virgin,” these are examples in which it does not.

There are instances in the Hebrew Old Testament where both the words “almah” and “bethulah” are used to designate a virgin. In Genesis 24:15-16:“…. before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder. And the damsel was very fair to look on, a virgin [bethulah], neither had any man known her:….”

In this passage of Scripture, referring to the same maiden, Rebekah, the word “almah” is used to describe her as a virgin. Genesis 24:43:“Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it will come to pass, that when a virgin [almah] comes out to draw water, and I say to her, Please give me, a little water from your pitcher to drink….”

Other passages such as Exodus 2:7-8; Song of Solomon 1:2-3; 6:8 refer to young maidens, who according to the context, are obviously virgins, and in each passage the word “almah” is used. In its translation of Isaiah 7:14, the Greek Septuagint, (which was the official translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language), used the Greek word”Parthenos” which means “virgin” in its translation of the Hebrew word “almah.” The Septuagint was translated by Jewish scribes in Alexandria, Egypt, in about 250 BC. It was translated for Greek-speaking Jews who wanted the Hebrew Scriptures in their Greek language. The New Testament followed the Septuagint rendering of the word “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14, as seen in Matthew 1:18, 24-25, Luke 1:26-35. From this perspective, it would seem reasonable that the Hebrew translators who lived within 350-400 years from the date of the writing of Isaiah would probably have a better understanding of the proper translation of “almah” in Isaiah 7:14, than scholars much farther removed in date.

This in itself is very solid evidence for the translation of the Hebrew word “almah,” as “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14. The fact is that both “almah” and “bethulah” can be rendered as virgin, “bethulah” more explicitly referring to a young girl who is a virgin, and “almah” referring to a young maiden of marriageable age or a young woman who is a virgin. Another strong fact supporting the translation of “almah” as “virgin” is found with the framework of the verse itself. Verse eleven states that this child-bearing event will be a “sign” to Israel.Christian writer Dr. Harry Rimmer makes a significant point:“What sign would there be to a nation in a young woman becoming a mother? That has happened so many millions of times in past history no man can estimate their number. This birth is to be one that will startle the world and give evidence of the fulfillment of a covenant of God.” 12

In other words, if this event is to be a sign, the only obvious conclusion is that the word ”virgin” is the proper translation rather than “young woman.” The conception of a virgin is a clearly miraculous sign of God’s intervention, whereas a normal human-related birth does not fulfill this criteria.Verse 14 states that the child is going to be an amazing child and His name will demonstrate this. He is to be called “Immanuel,” which means “God with us.” When people see the fulfillment of the sign (the birth), they will recognize the uniqueness of this child. Again, the virgin birth supplies the needed evidence to recognize the special quality of the child.The question may still be asked why Isaiah used the word “almah” instead of “bethulah” in his description of a young maiden in this verse.

Arthur Kac says, “Had the word ‘almah’ in the Immanuel prophecy been used to indicate a virgin, the only sense it would have conveyed was that the future Messianic King would be born out of wedlock, in which case it would have made no sense either to Isaiah or to King Ahaz or to anyone else of that day. In the context of the historical situation during which the Immanuel prophecy was given, this prophecy brought to Isaiah and his contemporaries a two-fold message. To the Davidic King Ahaz it announced God’s judgment upon the Davidic dynasty whose failings were climaxed by the reckless decision of Ahaz to invite Assyrian intervention. The long-range effect of this policy was destruction of the Judean state and the downfall of the Davidic dynasty. The after-effects of these tragic events upon the Messianic hope would be well-nigh disastrous. The Messianic Prince, who in accordance with God’s promises must spring from David’s house, will come at a time when the Davidic line will have been all but extinguished. The disinherited Messianic Prince will not be born in a proud royal city of Jerusalem, but, as indicated by Micah, in Bethlehem, the insignificant birthplace of Jesse, the father of David. Messiah’s mother will not be as she would have been, had the Davidic dynasty remained faithful, a queen residing in the royal palace; instead, she will be just an ‘almah,’ some unnamed and insignificant maiden. This essentially was the meaning which the word ‘almah’ conveyed to Isaiah and his contemporaries, the only meaning which at that particular time would have made sense”. 13

In summary, both words “bethulah” and “almah” are used to designate and describe a “virgin, a young woman of marriageable age.” The case for the translation of “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin,” outweighs the evidence for the translation “young woman.” Therefore, the verse should read, “Behold a [the] virgin shall conceive and bear a son….”.

B. “The context of the prophecy refers to the time period of King Ahaz, not to Jesus who lived 600 years later.”

The second Jewish argument regarding this verse is verbalized by Isaac Troki:“Moreover, the sense of the chapter, [Isaiah 7], is altogether adverse to the exposition of the Christians. It refers to Ahaz, king of Judah who had been in great trouble and consternation on account of the confederacy which the monarchs (Pekah, king of Israel and Rezin, king of Syria) had determined on, namely to besiege and subjugate Jerusalem…. Had it been the purpose of inspired writ to announce, as the Christians maintain, the advent of Jesus, how could Ahaz be concerned in a sign that could only be realized many centuries after his death or how could any promise cheer his heart that was to be fulfilled in his own days?” 14

He goes on to state that the prophetic totality of chapter seven refers to the time period of Ahaz, not to any far reaching date, such as the time period of the birth of Jesus Christ. Upon a close examination of the verses in this chapter, this conclusion by Isaac Troki proves to be incorrect. This passage looks beyond the immediate time of Ahaz and gives predictive elements that most assuredly point to the Messiah King, the ruler of the house of David.In verses 15-20, Isaiah does not give a certain date of the coming of “Immanuel.” He does, however, give a clue that the destruction of the whole Davidic kingdom will take place before this child comes into the prophetic picture. “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.” 15

Isaiah continues by saying:“The Lord will bring the King of Assyria on you and your people and your father’s house – days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.” 16Isaiah says that both Israel and Judah along with the Davidic dynasty will be destroyed before this “Immanuel” comes (Isaiah 7:17, 20). Israel was led into Assyrian captivity in 721 BC and Judah into Babylonian captivity in 586 BC. Both of these dates draw close to the coming and birth of the Lord Jesus Christ in 6-3 BC and away from the time period of Ahaz.Scholar Dr. H.A. Ironside states regarding the time period and arrival of this child in Isaiah 7:14:“Thus before this child should come on the scene and grow up to years of maturity, not only the king of Israel but also the king of Judah would have ceased to reign, and the land would be left without a son of David sitting on the throne of Judah, or any representative sitting on the throne of Israel.” 17

The main contention from Jewish polemicists that the setting of Isaiah could not be so far removed from the life of Ahaz, is that the sign was to assure Ahaz. In other words, the prophecy was directed to Ahaz and if it was to be fulfilled many years later, why would Isaiah give such a meaningless sign as this to Ahaz. Once again, a close examination of the passage reveals that this sign was not directed to Ahaz, but instead to the whole house of David (to Judah, those of David’s throne). Isaiah says, “Hear now, O House of David” (verse 13). He is not directing the prophecy to Ahaz who refused to ask for a sign. Instead, Isaiah directs the sign to all those who are of the house of David. From this verse he goes on to describe the One who will come, the Son of David, the Messiah-king, and states that His coming will be after the land of Israel, north and south, have been devastated and the Davidic dynasty is ended. George Adam Smith, and Dr. Franz Delitzsch, cover this material in a very exhaustive manner and for further study these men should be read as sources regarding the prophetic details in Isaiah 7. 18

C. “Jesus was not given the name Immanuel, as the verse declares.”

The third argument directed against the Christian exegesis of Isaiah 7:14, is based on the name “Immanuel” and the name given to the Lord – “Yeshua” – Jesus. Jewish polemicist, Gerald Sigal, gives the main assertion to this argument:“Strangely enough, nowhere in the New Testament do we find that Jesus is called Immanuel…. All the evidence thus indicates that Immanuel was a different individual from Jesus since Jesus was never called Immanuel.” 19

Samuel Levine states regarding this:“How does that make sense – they were to call his name Immanuel and instead they called him Jesus!” 20Isaac Troki also appeals to this argument:“From this it appears that Emanuel was a different individual from Jesus, for Jesus was in no instance called Emanuel – as to the name Jesus, it was given Him by mere chance; there were many other Jews named Jesus.” 21

David Baron, a Jewish-Christian writer and missionary gives a very clear explanation and defense against the argument listed above:“An objection has been raised why Jesus, if Isaiah 7:14 was really a prophecy of Him, was not called Immanuel. But the truth is Immanuel was to be no more the actual name of Messiah than Wonderful, Prince of Peace, Desire of all nations, Shiloh or Jehovah Tsidkenu. All Messiah’s titles were intended only as descriptions of His character, but His real name was, in the providence of God, concealed till his advent to prevent imposture on the part of pretenders, who would easily have taken advantage of it. But Jesus is really the best commentary on Immanuel, Immanuel-‘God with us’; Jesus-Saviour. But how could God come near us except as Saviour? and how could Jesus be Saviour except as Immanuel, in Whom dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily?” 22

David Baron appeals to Isaiah 9:6, Jeremiah 23:6 and Haggai 2:7. In these Messianic passages (which are even recognized by many within Judaism as referring to the Messiah), the names given to the Messiah are obviously not to be his actual names, but rather are descriptions of his character and nature. Throughout the Hebrew Old Testament, names are ascribed to people and places that are not intended as personal names, but rather are given to reflect a God-given purpose or quality (Numbers 3:30; 2 Kings 3:11; Isaiah 20:22; 1 Samuel 1:4). This name of “Immanuel” is exactly that. It describes the fact that the Messiah would be “God with us.” In Matthew 1:23 the Apostle Matthew asserts that Jesus is this one called “Immanuel”.

D. “This “virgin myth,” comes from Greek and Roman legends, not the Hebrew Scriptures.”

The last part of this Jewish polemic against the New Testament interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is verbalized by Samuel Levine.

He argues:“Lastly, it is important to recognize the origin of the theory of the virgin birth. The Jews never had such a theory so why did the Christians invent it? The answer is clear: The Jews rejected Jesus and the Gentiles were about to do the same. So Paul did two things – he issued an order saying that to be a Christian one no longer had to obey the 613 commandments of the Torah that the Jews had to observe, and in addition, Paul introduced a few pagan myths into the new Christian religion so that it would appeal to the pagan Gentiles.” 23

Mr. Levine goes on to describe the pagan mythology of a god called Attis that was worshipped in Western Asia. This myth allegedly indicates that Attis was born of a virgin and later killed and resurrected. Mr. Levine then adds:“The Christian religion is so similar to the worship of Attis that it cannot be considered a coincidence. Rather, Paul introduced the pagan ideas of his neighborhood into the worship of Jesus and made a new religion which would be perfectly acceptable to the Gentile pagans in his neighborhood. Paul simply switched Jesus for Attis, put a little Judaism in, and then called it Christianity.” 24

Gerald Sigal relates regarding this,“Many pagan religions believed in the idea of the impregnation of virgins by gods resulting in the birth of heroes. Stories of divine humans sired by the gods are told in several myths and legends…. The Pagan concept of divine birth, a concept alien of Judaism, entered Christianity through the Greco-Roman mythology then current in the western world.” 25

Both of these authors describe the link between Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter and pagan holidays that were a part of the Roman Empire. They attempt to demonstrate that the Roman Catholic Church taught and endorsed beliefs of pagan origin. As can be readily seen, this argument moves away from any exegetical interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 and instead, ascribes to a totally different line of attack. This is a very old, weak argument and is by no means original with Jewish polemics.

In response to these statements, it must be recognized that there is evidence that the Roman Catholic Church has adopted different pagan concepts into some of their forms of worship and belief. Some of the dates of Christian “holidays” can be traced back to different forms of Roman cultural background. 26 This requires a defense of the Roman Catholic Church and a study of just this subject matter in itself. But what took place in the association between Greek/Roman culture and the Roman Catholic Church did not begin to transpire until AD 350-400, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the New Testament and the teaching of the Lord’s apostles. 27

It is incorrect to point to these matters that involve the historical background of the Roman Catholic Church and then go back 250-300 years earlier to the apostolic Church and assume that the foundations of the Christian faith took part in some type of pagan culture.This objection to the Gospel proposes that the story of Jesus Christ that is found in the New Testament is derived from the myths and legends of the first century referred to as “ the mystery religions”. These mythological religions such as Mithrism, the Egyptian gods Osiris and Horus and the religious teacher Apollonius of Tyana, along with others, are affirmed to be the sources for the Gospel and it is asserted that the proof of this is in the numerous parallels found between them, such as the virgin birth of Jesus, His miracles, His death on the cross and resurrection from the dead.The following is a list of authors and writings which have provided scholarly research on this subject matter:

• J.P. Holding – Confronting the Copycat Thesis – Sept. 2007, www.tektonics.org.
• Unmasking the Pagan Christ – Stanley E. Porter, Stephen J. Bedard
• The Case for the Real Jesus – Lee Strobel.
• The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition – Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd

See: Kersey Graves book – The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors. A presentation of the “copycat theory” between the mystery religions and the Gospel.There are numerous problems with this “copycat myth theory’ and I will look at only a few limited areas of concern.First, the Gospel writers and apostles were Jewish and were a part of a community that was probably the most resistant of any culture in that time period (first century) to the inclusion of pagan religious materials. The apostle Paul, who wrote the majority of the books of the New Testament, was a very religious, orthodox Jew and by his own cultural training would be highly opposed to pagan philosophies and legends. The early church was also predominately Jewish in culture and the idea that the Christian Faith would borrow from pagan Gentile religions is highly unlikely. To assert this type of a connection between the Gospel and the mystery religions, there must be very solid evidence and this is not the case.

There is no evidence for this “myth relationship” found anywhere in all of the first century.Second, there is not much that historians can really know regarding these “mystery religions”. Most of the information regarding them is based on very subjective material. To attempt to connect these religions with the Christian Faith is very difficult at best based on the fact that we can know so very little regarding them or their belief systems.Third, the most significant parallels that are alleged to exist between the Gospel and the mystery religions cannot be substantiated before A.D. 100. This is well after the Gospel and the New Testament documents were written. To assert that these mystery religions were the source for the Gospel material cannot be maintained because the facts of the Gospel were already firmly established. If there was any type of borrowing, it would be much more likely that the mystery religions borrowed from the Christian Faith rather than the other way around.

Scholar Ronald H. Nash stated regarding these mystery religions – “ It is not until we come to the third century A.D. that we find sufficient source material (i.e., information about the mystery religions from the writings of the time) to permit a relatively complete reconstruction of their content… information about a cult that comes several hundred years after the close of the New Testament canon must not be read back into what is presumed to be the status of the cult during the first century A.D. The crucial question is not what possible influence the mysteries may have had on segments of Christendom after A.D. 400, but what effect the emerging mysteries may have had on the New Testament in the first century.” –Ronald H. Nash – Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions? – published by the Christian Research Journal, 1994.

Fourth, when these alleged parallels are examined – virgin birth, death and resurrection, incarnation of Christ…. with the concepts of the mystery religions, the parallels become less and less viable. The blood sacrifices, resurrection or resuscitation events of these religions are not presented on the same historical basis as the Gospel but rather are legendary and ”other-world idea based”, not related to time and space.Fifth, even if it was granted that these parallels are valid, it would not logically follow that simply because the parallel exists, that one borrowed from the other. There are numerous examples of the fallacy of this type of reasoning. One example would be Achilles, the fictional character in Homer’s Iliad. There are many similarities and parallels between Achilles and Alexander the Great, but no one seriously would consider Alexander the Great to be a fictional character derived from the Iliad. The same would apply to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

If parallels did exist between the mystery religions and the Gospel, it does not logically follow that one is derived from the other.Jewish polemicists point out various similarities and parallels between mythology and the details of the Gospel such as the virgin birth. Greek and Roman mythology includes many legends concerning “savior gods”, “virgin births”, “god-men”, and “resurrected heroes”.

When this information is compared to the Gospel narratives, some obvious similarities can be seen. On this basis, they argue that the Gospel writers borrowed from pagan sources in their composition concerning Jesus’ life. However, there is no logical necessity for assuming that later documents borrowed from earlier documents because of some noted similarities between them. This is an example of the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”). Many things in life consists of parallels and if an event or experience must be without similarity to be true, then all reality would be held in question. To assert that a later idea or event was caused by some similar one previous to it, just because the first idea or event was earlier, is extremely faulty reasoning.

Pagan accounts of mythological gods and god-human births may have been earlier in date (this is by no means conclusive), but it does not follow that the Gospel writers copied from these sources.Lastly, there is at present, no serious scholarship that provides data and evidence in support for a connection between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the mystery religions. Even the most ardent antagonists of the Gospel concede that the personages of these cults were mythological and not historical in nature. The Gospel on the other hand, is written and presented in terms centered in the facts of history. The life of Jesus is placed in time, in numerous geographical settings and occurring as public events… and presented as eyewitness based testimony. One can certainly decide not to believe the Gospel, but to do so on the basis of an alleged connection to these mystery religions is not an evidence-based objection.For a more information of this “myth objection”, see the book – A Christian Answer to Jewish Polemics. – Chapter 12.

1. Summary

When each of these objections espoused by Jewish polemicists are examined, it is evident that the Christian understanding of Isaiah 7:14 most certainly stands on a solid foundation. This verse is a prophetic passage which points to the virgin birth of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.