Matthew says that the conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost fulfilled Isaiah's words:

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel."

Matthew 1:23

Critics often answer that Isaiah did not say virgin. The Hebrew word is almah, they argue, meaning merely a young woman. Had Isaiah intended virginity, he would have used betulah. Matthew is therefore accused of building the virgin birth upon a mistranslation.

That objection identifies a real question but reaches its verdict too quickly. A word's possible gloss is not the whole meaning of a sentence, and the immediate crisis in Isaiah's day does not exhaust the pattern of the surrounding chapters. We need to consider the Hebrew term, the pre-Christian Greek translation, the historical sign to Ahaz, and Matthew's understanding of fulfilment together.

What does almah mean?

The Hebrew noun almah refers to a young woman of marriageable age. The word does not, by itself, function as a technical statement about the biological condition of every woman it describes. Yet neither is virgin an arbitrary Christian invention. In the Old Testament settings where the woman's circumstances are known, the term naturally carries the expectation of an unmarried young woman.

Rebekah is called an almah in Genesis 24:43 after the narrative has explicitly said she was a virgin and had not known a man (Genesis 24:16). Miriam appears to be the almah who approaches Pharaoh's daughter in Exodus 2:8. Song of Solomon 6:8 distinguishes queens, concubines, and alamoth.

The proposed alternative betulah is often treated as though it mechanically resolves the issue. It is the more usual word for virgin, but Hebrew usage still depends on context. Joel 1:8, for example, speaks of a betulah mourning for “the husband of her youth,” a phrase whose interpretation is debated. Lexical choices are not algebraic codes.

The careful conclusion is modest: almah means a young woman of marriageable age and is compatible with—often suggestive of—virginity. The word alone neither proves Matthew's complete case nor excludes his rendering.

The Greek translation existed before Matthew

Matthew did not invent the Greek word parthenos for Isaiah 7:14. The Jewish Greek translation of Isaiah, produced before Christianity, already rendered almah with parthenos, the ordinary Greek term for a virgin or maiden.

This point is sometimes overstated by saying that seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars translated the whole Old Testament in one event. The ancient tradition about the translators belongs specifically to the Greek Pentateuch, and the remaining books were translated at different times. We do not need the inflated claim.

The narrower historical fact is enough: a pre-Christian Jewish translator of Isaiah considered parthenos an appropriate Greek rendering in this verse. Matthew's wording therefore cannot fairly be dismissed as a translation created after the event to manufacture a prophecy.

The Greek evidence does not settle every interpretive question. Parthenos itself can occasionally be used more broadly, and a translator's choice is not inspired proof of the later application. It does show that Matthew's reading was linguistically available within Jewish Scripture before the birth of Christ.

The immediate setting: a sign in the days of Ahaz

Isaiah 7 begins during the Syro-Ephraimite crisis. Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel threaten Judah and seek to replace King Ahaz. The Lord tells Ahaz not to fear and invites him to ask for a sign. Ahaz refuses with pious-sounding words, so Isaiah announces that the Lord Himself will give a sign to “the house of David”:

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Isaiah 7:14

Before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, the lands of the two threatening kings will be forsaken (Isaiah 7:16). This creates an unavoidable near horizon. The prophecy spoke meaningfully into Ahaz's own crisis; a sign relevant only many centuries later would not explain the stated timetable.

Interpreters differ over the child's immediate identity. Proposals include a child born to Isaiah's household, a royal child in David's line, or a child whose identity is deliberately left less specific. Isaiah 8 introduces Maher-shalal-hash-baz with a similar timetable, while also addressing the land as belonging to Immanuel (Isaiah 8:8). The relationship is close, though the names and descriptions should not simply be collapsed.

Whatever view we take, the near application does not require a miraculous birth in Ahaz's day. A young woman then unmarried could conceive and bear in the ordinary course, and the child's early years would mark the collapse of the hostile alliance.

The promised child grows larger than the first crisis

If the passage ended at Isaiah 7:16, the near-historical reading might appear sufficient. It does not. The Immanuel theme continues through the following chapters. Judah is called Immanuel's land; the nations' schemes fail because “God is with us” (Isaiah 8:8–10). Then a child is announced whose government and names exceed any ordinary contemporary ruler:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder... Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David."

Isaiah 9:6–7

Isaiah's prophecy moves from an eighth-century threat to the preservation of David's house and the final rule of David's greater Son. The historical sign is real, but it belongs to a larger messianic movement.

This is why “double fulfilment” can be helpful if used carefully. It should not mean that every detail is fulfilled twice in exactly the same way. A better description is an immediate sign that establishes a pattern and a climactic fulfilment in which the language reaches its fullest significance. The first horizon concerns deliverance in Ahaz's generation; the final horizon concerns the arrival of Immanuel in a unique sense.

How Matthew uses fulfilment

Matthew often presents Jesus as bringing Israel's Scriptures to their intended goal. “Out of Egypt have I called my son” originally recalls Israel's exodus in Hosea 11:1, yet Matthew applies it to Jesus (Matthew 2:15). He is not pretending Hosea knew nothing of Israel. He sees Jesus as the true Son who embodies and completes Israel's story.

The same pattern helps in Isaiah 7. Matthew knows the immediate context. He nevertheless sees in the conception of Jesus the event that fills the sign with its deepest meaning. Here the young woman is unmistakably a virgin; the conception occurs before Mary and Joseph come together; and “God with us” is no longer merely a symbolic child's name. God has drawn near in the incarnate Son.

Matthew's argument does not rest upon almah being a technical word that can only mean biological virgin. It rests upon the convergence of the suitable Hebrew term, the established Greek rendering, the sign to David's house, Isaiah's developing child-and-king prophecy, and the actual circumstances of Jesus' conception.

Did Matthew mishandle Isaiah?

Matthew did not replace Isaiah's word with a Christian invention. He used a pre-existing Jewish Greek translation, read the verse within a larger Immanuel passage, and presented the birth of Jesus as the climactic realisation of a pattern rooted in Isaiah's own day.

A critic may still reject Matthew's theology or deny the virgin birth. But the simple charge—“Isaiah said young woman, Matthew dishonestly changed it to virgin”—does not do justice to the evidence.

Good interpretation must allow both horizons to speak. Isaiah addressed a genuine crisis in Judah. Matthew announced a genuine miracle in Mary. The first sign declared that God would preserve David's threatened house; the final fulfilment brought forth David's everlasting King.

References for further review