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. 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.”
Question: why didn’t you include Ezekiel with the prophecy of Jesus?
Kathleen, can you plz quote/reference, unpack your comment plz.
Ezekiel 40-45
Kathleen, please explain your point 🙂
The verses describe the restoration of the temple and future of the Israel as a community. From my perspective, the restoration is setting the stage for the preparation of Jesus’ arrival.
I agree. I needed to stay focused on explaining the Is 7:14 issue.
You have done an excellent job with descriptions and comparing the different Bible verses to establish with wonderful perspectives. Thank you, Dr. Eli
Thank you, Kathleen!
Wow De Eli thank you bringing under my attention all the different translations and using of the words ( “virgin” and “ young women ” ) – I will read it a few more times and maybe write them down myself. Your work and Wisdom is phenomenal – thanks you for Blessing us with your articles, very informative and appreciated.
Emily, I thank you for your support and encouragement! Whatever wisdom I have comes from outside of me. This wisdom comes not only from God, but also from numerous individuals who have contributed to my education in the past.
Isn’t Matthew’s rendering of ‘virgin to conceive’ related to his desire to show Jesus as ‘son of god’ to be comparable to the Roman ceasar as ‘son of god’?
That’s a good point. He does that too. An important point is that he does not make it up.
Linguisitic neunce -> linguisitic nuance ?
Otherwise very interesting.
I think that translating young woman by virgin hides the fact that she was young. Young woman has to be understood with historical context.
Fixed. thanks.
“The Lord Himself will give you a sign”. A young woman’s child called Emmanuel, OK that’s a sign. But a virgin who gives birth, WOW ! That is REALLY a sign FROM HIM 🤩
That’s actually one of the arguments for “virgin” vs “young woman” because presumably a young woman giving birth is nothing special; however, there are many circumstances in which even a non-virgin, young woman giving birth could be a sign.
Yes, a young woman giving birth to a child is mundane and hardly worth mentioning. However, a virgin that is remarkable. I agree with you Elizabeth.
Thanks for this.
I know that is one of the main arguments on the Christian side, but just think about it. Ahaz was faced with a problem: how can a prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin 800 years later possibly help him? (Answer: It can’t). So while I agree with your point, there could be other ways. (for example, a conception of a barren woman), among other possibilities.
What I would like to understand is the saying before,
” Is it a small thing that you weary man, but would you weary God also” or equivalent.
The messenger tells the King to ask for a sign. The King refuses. The messenger that continues to declare this passage, as a sign ” God Himself” had chosen to give.
My question is…what is the” weariness”? How is it to be best understood?
In Isaiah 7:10–13, King Ahaz wearies God by refusing a sign from the prophet (likely Isaiah). The “weariness” (Hebrew la’ah, “to tire/be impatient”) reflects Ahaz’s hypocritical piety—he claims not to “test” God (Deut 6:16) but truly evades divine demand to trust amid Assyria’s threat. His refusal fatigues human prophets (“weary men”) and insults God’s patience (“weary my God also”). This stubborn unbelief prompts God to give the sign anyway: the virgin/almah conceiving Immanuel (7:14), signaling judgment and hope beyond Ahaz’s failure. Best understood as covenantal disobedience—feigned humility masking distrust—that exhausts God’s forbearance, foreshadowing messianic grace despite human resistance.
An interesting read! I often find Jewish perspectives refreshingly pragmatic. I liked the portion explaining pesher. It can be challenging to read the Bible, both as a historical document and as a forecast of future events. Although I may be in danger of generalizing, Jews tend to be far less “sensational” about life and scripture, which I can appreciate. It seems most contemporary Christians read the Bible with the goal of extracting meaning in the context of their own lives. Moreover, they frequently seek some sort of “revelation” by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, we are warned not to get carried away with this in Colossians 2:18-23: “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.” I believe that maintaining a grounded, realistic approach is a healthy one!
Thank you, Adam for your input, my brother! In Jewish circles you we also have a lot of mystical and sensational takes on life and scripture. I think in Christian circles it is more pronounced though.
And the basic lies inherent in the founding of Christianity.
Most people here think they are truths. Including me.
But a young woman of less than 20 years may not immediately be classified or tagged as barren.
Of course not, but I just showed you that other than virgin birth, there are other miracles that women make that can be considered a sign. I don’t think we can be sure what it was. But whatever it was it was for that time and not for 800 years later :-). Read the whole chapter and you will quickly see it yourself (Is 7-8).
Hmmm. Such as what happened with Sarah and Rebecca. Interesting.
Let’s keep thinking together/
The young woman in Is7v14 was Isaiah’s own wife who was pregnant and not a virgin.
Yes, for a contemporary interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, the “young woman” (almah) could plausibly be someone other than Isaiah’s wife, though the text doesn’t explicitly identify her. The context is a sign given to King Ahaz during a political crisis (around 734 BCE), so the woman could be a figure known to Ahaz’s court, such as a royal consort or a prominent woman in Jerusalem, whose child would symbolize hope or judgment (e.g., Immanuel, meaning “God is with us”). Some scholars suggest she could be Ahaz’s wife, with the child being a future heir like Hezekiah, though the timeline is debated. The prophecy’s focus is on a child born soon after, serving as a sign for Judah’s immediate situation. Without a clear identity, it remains open to speculation, but the contemporary setting points to a local woman of significance, not necessarily Isaiah’s wife.
I agree with your assessment the passage in question does have a 700-800 BC fulfillment, but I would go one step further. Early Christians saw the entire Old Testament as a type of Christ. Thus the greater fulfillment (not just dual fulfillment) was in the person of Christ. So although I agree with your idea of Pesher since it gives the foundational basis of such an approach, I would take it one step further to the typological approach. Needless to say I would have loved to have been there when Jesus explained to the disciples how he fulfilled all the Old Testament Scriptures. Thanks for your insights. Always good to hear from someone knowledgeable in Hebrew and Jewish traditions.
I agree the entire “Old Testament” speaks of Christ as either prophet or priest or king. But in this case, Doug, we are not asking about entire Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) but about Isa 7:14 in particular.
Isaiah had a son by his wife who was a prophetess. The prophesy in Is7v14 is fulfilled in Is8v3.
I don’t claim to be an expert.
But as I understand the Tanakh, the young woman is pregnant [Is7v14 -Tanakh].
I don’t understand how a virgin can be pregnant.
The JPS says she is with child, which also indicates that she is pregnant [Is7v14 – JPS].
Colin, I agree with you that in its original fulfillment, it was someone within Ahaz’s immediate circle. Several possibilities exist. Perhaps the sign was that she was a barren woman who, by the grace of Almighty God, suddenly conceived with her husband. Such an event would be a natural birth and yet still a sign from the Lord (Isaiah 7:14). However, there are other examples of women conceiving when it seemed impossible, such as Sarah (Genesis 18:11-14; 21:1-2) and Elizabeth (Luke 1:7, 36-37). In both cases, they and their husbands were far too old to conceive naturally. So Mary was not the first to experience an impossible pregnancy! (the method was unique; the fact of impossible pregnancy was not).
So are you saying that Matthew, an intelligent Jew close to Jesus, would have personally known the virgin birth story and therefore used the word which came closest to portraying the truth?
Something like that (if I understood your point correctly).
Except Jesus had no earthly father.
Richard, what did you mean by that? Of course Jesus had no earthly father.
Well! I appreciate it. Your time and dedication to this text of Isaiah 7:14 is meaningful. But the truth of the matter is that Matthew the author of the Gospel of Matthew has no bias in declaring the infallible truth of the living word of God. There is no confusion in the author’s choice of word.
Looks like you think I wasted my time :-). I can assure you I did not. Perhaps, you are not aware of the critique of our belief that Matthew was exactly right. I provided an accurate and well-argued defense of our faith. It is true that not every one knows how much it was needed :-).
No, I do not think you wasted your time at all. Only, I notice that you hold on to the same position of the critics of the nineteenth century. Matthew 1:22-23 was sharply attacked by the critics of the nineteenth century. Except you did not say a word about “Immanuel”. But your point is not differed from the critics of the Nineteenth Century. The critics point to and say, Isaiah wasn’t speaking of a virgin, but saying only a young woman, or a maiden, would conceive. Therefore, the critics say, the Bible does not teach virgin birth. That is what we call the exegesis of despair, because Matthew is teaching that Jesus was born from a woman who had never been with a man – (a virgin).
Jean, the comparison is not fair, since I affirm that Jesus was born of a virgin. The critiques you are referring to are not limited to 19th century, but better explaination is that they simply did not understand Matthew’s Jewish methods of interpreting prophecy.
Regardless of whether the Hebrew word is understood as referring to a “technical” virgin or to a young woman who is not technically a virgin, there is nothing in the Hebrew text or in the Septuagint of Isa. 7:14 that asserts that the woman will conceive as a technical virgin. All the text says is that some young woman who at present may or may not be a technical virgin will at some point in the future have sex and conceive. (Continued in the next comment.)
I agree. Mathew reasoned backwords from the fact of virgin birth back to Isa 7:14.
Dr. Eli, thank you for you excellent explanation of Matthew’s thinking and Jewish objections to it and your well-reasoned defense of the Christian understanding of Isaiah 7:14. I appreciate your faithful and fair-minded approach, especially on this subject, which is often addressed with a steep slant based on selective evidence by both Jewish and Christian apologists.
Because you provide additional insights in response to comments, I wish you would enable printing the comments along with your blog post. As it is, I must select and copy the text of the comments, paste that into a Word document, save the Word document as a PDF, and then append that PDF to the PDF of your blog post.
Dear Kelton, thank you so much. I don’t think comments can be printed out (enabled). But I appriciate your comment very much it makes me realize how important answering comments are.
The writer of the Gospel of Matthew is guilty of misappropriating the Septuagint text by incorporating into his story the fanciful idea of a technical virgin conceiving as a technical virgin without having committed the sex act. This idea of a technical virgin giving birth was a clearly “pagan” idea that was common in non-Jewish cults at the time the Gospel of Matthew was written, and the writer of Matthew clearly appropriated this idea and grafted it into his version of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It was then picked up by the writer of the Gospel of Luke and given further legitimacy.
So sorry that you think that. Not sure if you even read the article 🙂
There is nothing whatsoever in the Ancient Hebrew Messianic tradition that required the Messiah to be born of a technical virgin. Matthew’s misappropriation of Isaiah and his appropriation of the pagan motif of virgin birth calls into question the legitimacy of the Gospel of Matthew, and by extension, the Gospel of Luke. The gospels of Mark and John make no reference whatsoever to the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was born by any miraculous means, and in fact John 6:42 identifies him as “the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know”. Matthew’s “Virgin Birth” is clearly a fictional invention on his part.
If something is located only in one of our four gospels, that does not make it potentially false. Close to 80% of John is absent from Mark, Luke, and Matthew. In order to make your misguided statement, “There is nothing whatsoever in the Ancient Hebrew Messianic tradition that required the Messiah to be born of a technical virgin,” you of course have to discredit Matthew. I think you simply misunderstood him.
Mike, I think you are very confused. You are mixing things together without a clear connection, but your comments show a firm ideological commitment.
What, pray tell, is meant by “technical virgin” ?? This is a serious question. I do not understand what you mean by this phrase.
Signs in the Scriptures are short term events (rare or miraculous) to confirm faith in a longer term prophecy. Thus Gideon is given the signs involving fleeces, Moses the sign of serpent and a briefly leprous hand. The key element is that the sign is important but not the focus. In the case of Moses the mission was delivering the Israelites out of bondage. In the case of Gideon it was deliverance from oppression of the Midianites. The sign of Isaiah 7:14 is to confirm a prophecy announced earlier in the chapter. In verse 8 we learn the threat to Jerusalem will last 65 years!
Interesting point. thank you.
In response to Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg: Of course, I discredit Matthew. Even Luke discredits him and changes some of the key details in his Nativity narrative. It is obvious that the writer of Matthew was writing for a predominantly Jewish audience was was intent on making Jesus of Nazareth as appealing as possible to the Jews of his day. In is now acknowledged by the majority of Biblical scholars that Christianity spread far more rapidly among the Gentiles that it did among the Jews in the first 100 years of its existence as a “religion”, largely as a result of the efforts of the Apostle Paul. Much scholarly work has been done to demonstrate that Matthew was written to counteract this Gentile-leaning trend, and he went at it by fair means and foul, inventing false “Messianic” prophecies to prove his point.
Mike, I disagree completely. Recommendation: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/judaizing-the-nations-the-ritual-demands-of-pauls-gospel/1D63BE524463B9007735F268C42B387F and https://marknanos.com/reading-paul-within-judaism-2/
part 2: Matthew adopts this same sign. The key element is deliverance coming within 65 years! Alas it did not arrive. Rather destruction was the future of Jerusalem not deliverance. Matthew wrote his gospel likely in the late 50s AD. They ALL looked forward to the return of Messiah to set up the kingdom of God on earth. Matther uses the sign of Isaiah 7 to encourage believers that deliverance is coming very soon, within 65 years of the birth of Messiah… PS Read the rest of the prophecy of verse 8…Ephraim (modern West bank area) won’t even be a people when this is over… maybe this prophecy is intended for our time.. Within 65 years the “people” north of Jerusalem… the so-called “palestinian people” won’t even be a problem any more.
Dr Eli, really appreciate this thorough examination of the various words used in general and the actual biblical references to virgin, using pesher interpretation.
One of the first questions I was asked in college was voicing doubt about the ‘virgin birth’. This kind of article substantiates discussion. Such a detailed study provides credibility. Thanks ever so much!
A) So that the messianic prophecy is unique in Isaiah itself, is there something that refers to the impossible being a reality as a pointer to Yeshua?
B) The subsequent incidents that Isaiah described differ from Yeshua’s or Israel’s history. There’s no record either of an Immanuel after Ahaz.
Thanks. Responding to your questions as best as I understand them. A) On second thought, I think I am not sure what you mean. B) Jesus is also not called Emmanuel, but Jesus/Yeshua/Yehoshua. Emmanuel does not have to be the “first” name.
They may have been an Immanuel after Ahaz, and the details may not have been included in the text – perhaps because it was not important to the writer or the many editors of the text.
Sorry to be so obscure!
A) referring only to the Isa7 passage, what is so miraculous about it that it’s a sign about Yeshua?
B) historical events do not coincidence with the prophecy.
C) the meaning of names is important in understanding the prophecy too.
Immanuel- God with us .
Maher Shallal Hash Baz – Quick to consequences or plunder.
So how was the prophecy fulfilled accurately or symbolically?
A) We don’t know. It was known to people at that time, but it could have been someone struggling with getting pregnant and than getting pregnant exactly according to the word of the prophet. In other words, virgin birth is not a necessary explanation for something like this to be a sign.
B) Not sure what you mean by that. Why wouldn’t some of them?
C) Again, there are different possibilities for Ahaz’s time. But you are still working out of the incorrect ideal “prophecy as prediction.” Isaiah is not a pagan oracle to foretell things. Prophets speak for God to God’s people to encourage them or discourage them within their present circumstance.
I liked how you answered the question with “both yes and no.” I learned that “fulfillment” meant “do it again, only this time with a God twist that completes the prophecy to its truest meaning.” Meaning there was a historical fulfillment of the prophecy and a spiritual fulfillment, in which only Yeshua could complete.
Yes. That’s what I think Matthew thinks.
Thank you Dr. Eli. Really enjoyed reading this, very interesting. As with all your writing, it always leaves room for further thought and reflection.
It’s interesting that Matthew uses the word ‘Fulfilled’ (plero’’o – G4137) several times (16?) throughout his Gospel – establish or uphold? What would be the Hebrew equivalent ?
Matthew’s use of “fulfilled” (plēroō, G4137) in his Gospel, including Matthew 1:22–23 citing Isaiah 7:14, signifies completing or realizing Old Testament prophecies. Appearing 16 times, plēroō implies not just prediction but the full realization of God’s plan through Jesus. It goes beyond “establishing” to mean bringing prophecies to their ultimate meaning, as seen in applying Isaiah’s historical sign to Jesus’ virgin birth. The Hebrew equivalent is likely male’ (“to fill”) or qum (“to establish, arise”), though no single term fully captures plēroō’s theological nuance. Male’ aligns with filling or completing, while qum suggests a promise coming to pass (e.g., Jer 44:28). Matthew’s usage, influenced by the Septuagint, reflects a messianic interpretation, seeing Jesus as the deeper fulfillment of texts like Isaiah 7:14. This bridges the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian theology, emphasizing divine completion over mere prediction.
Thanks for the wonderful clarifications of the various translations, etc! So much is taken on faith and on what one wants to believe!
Precisely.
Many thanks, that really helps.
Phil
Interesting in regard to translations but not really that impotant because as a ‘born again ‘ follower of Yehusha I know that the bible is true and the new testament is the fulfillment of the old testament.
Adrian, this logic may work for you, but it is no argument to those who seek to reason with believers against the Gospel’s veracity. Chances are you never encountered those who will level these charges against the Gospel of Matthew. I have. We need to have a good answer for the hope that is within us. I believe my article does just that. Thank you to all friends who, through their comments and personal interaction, have helped to make it that strong.
Dear Dr. Eli, I believe your translation is also not correct, as actual translation is:
“ Therefore the Lord will give you this: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Our God”.
Dear Dr. Fillip Sharifi, you translate אות as “this” instead of “sign.” Why? Also, why would עִמָּנוּ אֵל be translated as “our God”? None of this is grammatically correct.
Loved it – as usual.. many thanks for your time in prepping this..Russ
Russ, blessings as usual!
Great insight! I will add there were some prophecies Matthew noted that were specifically directed to the future messiah as well. I think of the triumphal entry, and His birth in Bethlehem to name a few.
Yes, of course! But he still applies them roughly the same way he did with Is. 7:14 and Hosea 11:1.
At the end of the First Objection section, the last sentence seems to be incomplete. Would you please explain this in more detail. However, I found this article very interesting as it also demonstrates the importance of translating from the original language as well as the importance of context.
It was complete, but I did remove it for clarity. Thank you!
Dr Eli, this article gives me so much to chew on! It’s indeed a mouthful! Excellently executed! Blessings!
This one is indeed more technical and hopes people don’t throw in the towel too quick 🙂
That was very interesting. Very informative.
I have not heard that perspective before.
Another thing we can consider is that prophecy can be telescopic ( it happens in present and future.)
This happened many times.
Yes. In the end this is what Matthew thinks. But while prophecy could work that way, it does not mean that Isaiah try to say what the prophecy ended up saying.
Another interpretation: Matthew intentionally lied knowing that the concept of “virginity” would enhance his credibility as to the magic and power of Jesus and that no one alive at the time had the technical ability to refute those lies.
It is why religion typically uses lies as a source of motivation for improved human behavior.
Oy vey. There is no end to people’s imagination!
Sure sounds too similar to Semiramis in Babylon. The Gospel of Matthew was not written by any eyewitness; the Gospels are overtly influenced by Paul and his school; “Gabri-El” is actually a title for David; the “Child” was probably a child with David’s soul.
I don’t know where to start :-). Probably the best thing is to recommend a great book by a great schoolar – https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony-ebook/dp/B08VVYPXCL?ref_=ast_author_mpb
I may be getting of subject but, shouldn’t we be using the true name of our savior Yeshua? This is the name that was given to our Savior at his birth. And Elohim Yahweh is the name of our creator not just God. God I believe shows disrespect because there are many gods. Our creator is one, unique, spiritual and he gave us his Son, Yeshua, to free us from sin.
I appreciate all your writings and look forward to reading them every day. Thank you!
Dear Victor, this is truly off-subject :0) But I do realize that some people are very passionate about this. Perhaps, some time later, I will write an article about this issue and put my thoughts on paper, so to speak. We can then all interact with it. Deal?
Good article. But Mahershalalhashbaz/Immanuel would see the Assyrian invasion as judgment on hard-hearted Israel, to whom Isaiah and his sons would become signs (Isaiah 8:8-18; 1Peter 2:4-8 associates the stumbling stone with Jesus). Isaiah 9 foresees a child and Great-light from Galilee who is “Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” to rule forever on David’s throne. Freed from the curse on Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22:24-28), the virgin-born Seed of the Woman would be the hope of Israel and fulfiller of the Covenants with the Fathers (Romans 15:8-12).
The claims align with biblical texts but require scrutiny. Isaiah 8:8-18 describes Mahershalalhashbaz and Immanuel as signs to Israel amid the Assyrian invasion, a judgment on their hard-heartedness, which is consistent with the text. 1 Peter 2:4-8 links the “stumbling stone” to Jesus, supporting the messianic interpretation. Isaiah 9:6-7 prophesies a child from Galilee, called “Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace,” ruling on David’s throne, matching the messianic hope. The reference to Jeconiah’s curse (Jeremiah 22:24-28) and its resolution through a virgin-born Seed (Romans 15:8-12) aligns with Christian theology tying Jesus to covenant fulfillment. However, the virgin birth’s connection to Jeconiah’s curse is interpretive, not explicit in the texts. The claims are largely accurate but blend literal and theological readings, which some may dispute based on context or hermeneutics.
A question: In your view Mary as mother of Jesus is descendant of David?
Yes, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is considered a descendant of David in Christian tradition, based on biblical accounts. The Gospel of Luke (3:23-38) provides a genealogy tracing Jesus’ lineage through Mary back to David, though some debate exists about whether this genealogy pertains to Mary or Joseph. Since Jewish lineage could be traced through the mother, Mary’s descent from David is plausible. The Gospel of Matthew (1:1-17) also emphasizes Jesus as a descendant of David through Joseph, but early Christian tradition, including texts like the Protoevangelium of James, supports Mary’s Davidic ancestry. This connection fulfills Old Testament prophecies, such as 2 Samuel 7:12-16, which promise a Messiah from David’s line. While historical records are limited, theological consensus holds that Mary’s lineage ties Jesus to David, reinforcing his messianic identity.
Ok Dr. Eli 👌🏼
Hah I was thinking on the war Ahaz was to face and Isaiah telling him “you will not be replaced” cause their is a promise to the house of David, to Eve, to Abram, to David so the virgin (of course because the thing it is between Eve and the Lord)… a way to recover the crown was given to Satan the deceiver. So simple, you made it far more enriched.
THanks for your comment, Ana Margarita!
Excellent linguistic analysis, Dr. I have occasionally found the LXX disappointing as translation, but it is a valuable reference notwithstanding.
Well. disaapointing? Not really. Remember LXX scholars were working from a different Hebrew text that we have today as Massoretic Text (MT). So it is not disaapointing. It offers great insight and is in fact another witness to God’s word.
Yes, well, good point about the LXX referring back to a time prior to the Masoretic text, more in line with the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I used the word ‘occasionally’ because once or twice I have found a spiritual revelation in the choice of words used in the Masorah that was not reinforced by the LXX. I did agree that the LXX is a valuable reference.
Thank you for feedback.
Appreciate your explanation. It is a very true analysis of the text and gives a proper teaching ,which validates the understanding of Judaism coupled with a belief in the Fully Anointed One.
Blessings!
The LXX was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures commissioned hundreds of years before Jesus was born. In that sense, it is a snapshot of what was current at the time of Jesus. Objectively, it is more reliable than the Massoretic text, which was compiled hundreds of years AFTER the life of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple. The Massoretes were sensitive to the overwhelming prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus and added and subtracted Scripture. The Dead Sea Scrolls are actually scrolls that have many anachronisms dating to the Middle Ages and are unreliable.
Eric, I agree. I was tempted to say that the Massoretic text MAY HAVE edited the original BETULAH into ALMAH, but I decided against this interpretation since the Dead Sea Scrolls also have ALMAH. (unlike the case with Deut. 32:8-9 and sons of God vs. Sons of Israel). It is a more responsible interpretation to say that Greek VIRGIN is a perfectly legitimate translation of Hebrew ALMAH.
A very interesting explanation of the various interpretations of Virginia vs young women. Of course you have to consider the Angel speaking to Mary and then to Joseph. All the variations of the prophecy scene comes into the focus.
God chose Bethlehem for Jesus’ birth primarily to fulfill biblical prophecy and to connect the lineage of Jesus, as the Messiah, to King David. The prophet Micah prophesied the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and Joseph, a descendant of David, had to travel there for a Roman census, which ultimately fulfilled the prophecy. Thus established Jesus as the prophesied Davidic king, born in the same town where David was born
Thank you for your comment, Michael.
Good day Dr.Eli..!
I thank you for sharing this post to us. No one can grow in the things of God except by getting information from other believers(Heb.10:25). This post is another spiritual eye opener for me. While I agree with your views that the Old Testament prophets were referring to the then events, Jesus also testifies that they were referring to Him:
(Luke 24:44)
[44]Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”(NKJV).
God bless you Sir.
Yes, indeed in Christ Jesus all those things were filled it up with meaning and therefore – fulfilled!
In Gen.3 God said that “the seed of the woman” – woman don’t have seed but an “egg” in which the seed of the man is planted. But saying, “The seed of a woman” is saying a woman not having had connected with a man in a sexual way will conceive. There God was saying to us it will be a virgin woman having a child, “He” will set us free from the curse of the law, death, God in His Son will do it Himself because no man can set us free but only God can save His people.
Genesis 3:15’s “seed of the woman” (Hebrew zera‘) is unusual—zera‘ typically denotes male offspring (Gen 4:25)—highlighting an anomalous conception. While not explicitly “virgin birth,” it foreshadows one: a child from woman alone, bypassing human fatherhood. Early Jewish exegesis (Targums) saw proto-messianic hope here; Christians link it to Isaiah 7:14’s almah and Luke 1:34–35. Theologically, it signals divine initiative—God Himself (as Son) crushing the serpent, fulfilling the curse-reversal no man could achieve (Gal 3:13; Rom 5:12–19). Not proof-texting a virgin birth, but a pregnant anomaly pointing to incarnation: salvation by God’s seed in Mary, not Joseph’s.
my view:
Every sacrifice to God had to be unblemished.
Mary was a virgin (unblemished) and she gave birth to Jesus via the Holy Spirit
Mary was not a sacrifice. Am I missing some piece of Catholic theology here? Moreover, woman who is not a virgin due to Godly marriage is hardly blemished.
Isn’t the fact that Joseph was willing to give Miriam a divorce when he found out she was pregnant one way to prove that they hadn’t had intercourse?
There is no reason to prove it. She was still a virgin. She was married to Joseph but in the first stage of Jewish wedding where sex is not yet a part of it.
Why are you not commenting on the issue that the verse refers to a specific person “THE” almah, not “A” almah? Would this fact not validate that everyone knew who the almah was at the time of the prophesy ie it was dealing with a specific female alive at the time.
Your reference to the Septuagint predating Christianity is also seems potentially questionable. My understanding is that the original Septuagint did not translate the prophets; but only the 5 Books of Moses. If this is so, the parthenos translation post dates the dawn of Christianity and would seem to lose reliability as possibly being a convenient manipulation.
I would appreciate your comments, especially why you have not felt it necessary to specifically address the definite article in almah.
1) I am not sure why you think THE ALMAH is an issue here; it is there, but THE can be variously interpreted. If you have a good insight into why THE here is crucial to interpretation. Let’s hear it. 2) You are right that Isaiah was not part of the original Torah LXX translation. But it still predates the NT by 1-2 centuries. The translation is generally dated to the mid-2nd century BCE, likely around 150–130 BCE, in Alexandria, Egypt.
The commentaries on the one verse ignore the context given within Luke which alludes to the fact that Joseph, the fleshly human father of Yahushua, nearly rejected Mary for the pregnancy, which was obviously not from him, and only came to fully accept Mary after a message from heaven … which could have been in his dreams, or as a vision … but regardless, it was that which brought him around to accept the pregnancy of Mary as a divine event. Is this context not important that we should so narrowly focus on a specific word … which may be subject to a variety of interpretations, as you have pointed out?
Dante, please consult my other comments as to why this is important.
Really it’s a blessing to have such beutiful thoughts
Blessings to you, my brother!
Matthew spent 3 years with Jesus if he wrote that a virgin will give birth then we should trust he is correct. He was also inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We (at least I) are not doubting Matthew :-), although all four gospels are, strictly speaking, anonymous documents (Matthew is a later designation). Discussion is about how Matthew uses one word when others claim that it doesn’t not mean that in original.
I’m with apostle Paul on the importance of the life and resurrection. Whether it is a virgin birth or not isn’t that important to me. The resurrection on the other hand is more important.
That’s a good point.
The virgin birth (through God, the Father) seems very important to me because it was Christ’s divinity that allowed him to willingly “give up the ghost” on the cross – to willingly lay his life down as opposed to his life being taken from him.
I meant (through the Holy Spirit)…
Thanks for your comments, Jewel.
Thank You. This helped me with at times I think I know what I know but recognizing what I
don’t know. Again thanks. Shalom
🙂
Many Christians (and evidently also Matthew) read the prophecies as looking through a rearview mirror. Matthew wanted to emphasise the special attributes of Jesus; and if it was not a ‘virgin’ birth, then Jesus would be just an ‘ordinary man’. Back to Isaiah: The ‘virgin’ would be the correct understanding; it is common practice that ‘young women’ get pregnant, but here the birth of this boys is a ‘sign’ of the Lord Himself; and a normal pregnancy would not qualify for such sign. Also in English and Dutch languages there are words with multiple meaning like ‘maiden’ (E) and ‘maagd’(D); they can be ‘young woman’ or ‘virgin’ of ‘young lady’. So I believe that Isaiah really meant ‘virgin’; the rest of the argument is a matter linguistic taste and maybe the wish to read the Biblical sentences leaving out the ‘magic’.
Thanks, Arend. As always a thoughtful responce.
I don’t get what the issue is this seems to be all about semantics. The scripture clearly says Mary had not known a man she even asked the Angel how can it be that I’m pregnant. Joseph thought she had and was going to divorce her God said no that child is conceived of the Holy Spirit. How can we finite humans think we can understand God’s miracles. We are saved by faith in God’s plan. The bloodline comes down through the father. God is perfect therefore his son is perfect and clean through the virgin birth. Isaiah 7:14. God’s word is true and it is by faith we receive not by our own understanding.
Michaelle,
The reason you don’t understand why this is even worth the conversation is that you never encountered arguments against virgin births based on the ALLEGED mistranslation of Is. 7:14 by Matthew. But that’s OK, I understand why you are muzzled. Skip to another article; this one is probably not relevant for you. It is, I can assure you, HIGHLY RELEVANT to those that know what a BIG ISSUE this is.
It’s not necessarily true that prophecy is meant to have a contemporary and immediate fulfilment. For instance, when God calls Moses He gives this sign: “I will be with you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain” (Exodus 3:12). Moses wanted additional proof–and God provided many proofs, though it angered God. God is angered when Ahaz does not ask for a sign–but that’s because Ahaz relies more on Egyptian alliance than on God. Moses at least had faith. God therefore gives a sign that leaps far beyond the contemporary to that of the Messiah, born of a virgin. God would deliver Israel but the greater sign is the Virgin birth of Jesus, who will save the world. As per Moses, this asserts that God is with them in the fight: now with Assyria and forever, in Christ Jesus.
Thank you for your comment, Eric. Its ok for brother to disagree. God bless.
There is a difference between being muzzled and having faith. It is such hubris to think that the finite can ever comprehend the infinite incomprehensible God. There comes a point in one’s life of faith where you have to let God be God stop trying to figure Him out because his ways are higher and His thoughts are higher. In my life the questions I had reading Gods word most often drew me farther away from Him. When I accepted the Bible as His inerrant word it gave me the opportunity to learn of Him, draw nearer and grow in my faith after all God did say about Abraham his faith was accounted to him as righteousness. it’s all about FAITH. If that means I’m muzzled then so be it!!
See Was John the Baptist born of a virgin? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385741033
Hebrew virgins versus Greek virgins
Pagan Zeus impregnating teenagers.
Luke 1:36 says Mariam was ALSO OLD like Elizabeth. NT should be read as a Hebrew book. In first centuries Hebrew ‘virgin’ is understood in the context of the Temple and blood, ie menstruation.
Talmud: Who is accounted a virgin (bethulah)? She that has never suffered a flow, even though she is married. Mishnah Niddah 1:4.
Bethulah=
• A young girl who has never had a period;
• A woman who for some physical reason has not had a period;
• An older woman no longer menstruating.
Paul says post menopausal women can marry 1 Cor 7:36.
Philo on Sarah:‘ Among the virtues some are ever virgin. Some pass from womanhood to virginity, as Sarah did: for ‘it ceased to be with her after the manner of women.
The claim that John the Baptist was born of a virgin birth, via post-menopausal Elizabeth, draws from a niche interpretation in the 2024 paper by J. A. Doyle. It redefines Hebrew “bethulah” (virgin) as blood purity per Temple laws, including non-menstruating elderly women (Mishnah Niddah 1:4; Philo on Sarah’s “second virginity”). Luke 1:36 notes Elizabeth’s old age (“also” implying Mary’s), contrasting Greek “parthenos” (young virgin) and pagan myths like Zeus’s unions. Paul (1 Cor 7:36) permits marriage for older “virgins.” However, this is a minority view; mainstream Christianity sees only Jesus’s virgin birth (Luke 1:34). Elizabeth was elderly and barren but married to Zechariah, with no NT “virgin” label for her. The paper’s Hebrew lens is valid contextually but speculative, influenced by antisemitism critiques of church dogma.
The last part of your article is filled with a lot of assumptions, all of which run counter to traditional scholarship. The ancient fathers affirmed that Matthew, the disciple of Jesus, wrote the first Gospel to show Jesus as the fulfillment of Scripture. Mark’s Gospel is short and is in a form that is easily memorized; some think that this was delivered to audiences (perhaps synagogues, as well as other mission opportunities) that were unfamiliar with Jesus. Luke affirms that his Gospel is based on the earlier Gospels (Matthew-Mark) and eyewitness accounts. Luke traveled with Paul on his missionary journeys; it is likely that Paul knew and affirmed the virgin birth of Jesus and alluded to this “mystery of godliness.” With the exception of Revelation, the New Testament corpus was written before 70 C.E.
The ancient Fathers’ view of who wrote Matthew first is NOT traditional scholarship; Eric 🙂 Mark as first is, in fact, scholarly consensus. If Paul knew about the Virgin Birth (which I don’t mind at all; I myself believe in it), nowhere in his writings does he indicate it.
Mary herself confirms her virginity as ” not knowing a man ” She understood this in the context of that necessity in order to give birth to a child. She also was “a young woman” virgin . Then the angel explains how the child . Messiah Yeshua would be born from her body by ” the Holy Spirit coming upon you and the power of the highest will overshadow you , therefore also that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God ( Luke 1:35). Further there is the confirmation by Elizabeth where Elizabeth calls the unborn child , Lord and Mary as the mother of my Lord. Mary then goes into a prophetic utterance that confirms her personal belief that she is carrying the child, Jesus. .
Indeed.
Part 1:
With all due respects, the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, which predates the Masoretic Text, has two distinctions which call the Masoretic Text into question.
1. In the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, God is referred to as YHWH, not Adonai. Therefore, we know that the Mosetic Compilers altered the verse.
2. For the last word, “Immanuel”, the Masoretic “God is with us” is not the way the Dead Sea Scrolls read. The Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls combines the two words, indicating that it is a name (i.e., God with us) and not a description. Matthew’s quotation is, therefore, correct in this respect.
Since the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date the Masoretic Text, and have no anti-Christian biased, we must conclude that what YHWH through Isaiah said was Messianic, and not temporal.
Part 2
Isaiah uttered this prophecy in, about, 735 BC. Israel was not conquered until 722 BC. If Isaiah was referring to a “young woman” in 735, the kid would have been 13 years old by 722 BC. But verse 7:16 says, according to the Dead Sea Scrolls: “For before the child knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you abhor shall be forsaken.” So, clearly, YHWH through Isaiah did not have a woman who was pregnant at that time in mind since the Northern Tribes were not conquered by Assyria until the kid would have been 13, long past the age a child knows right from wrong.
So, very clearly, YHWH had in mind someone born after 722 BC.
Part 3
Isaiah uttered this prophecy till, about, 735 BC.,. Assyria did not fall until 607 BC, when it was conquered by the Babylonians. That was over 100 years later. So, clearly, if this is what YHWH said to Isaiah, no child born in the Court of Ahaz was in mind for by 607 BC that child, indeed, all of that Court, would long have been dead and the prophecy would have failed and been false.
So, very clearly, YHWH had in mind someone born after 607 BC. And, the only contender is Jesus of Nazarite, King of the Jews.
Part 4
Finally, we do not have the original Book of Isaiah. We have the corrupt Masoretic Version, the Septuagint Version, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Clearly, amongst the three, the Dead Sea Scroll must only be considered. But, even that is not the original. So, in the end, we really do not know if Isaiah used the Hebrew word for Virgin or the Hebrew word for Young Woman. Since the kid is called “God With Us” (one compound word) in the Dead Sea Scrolls, YHWH through Isaiah clearly is anticipating Messiah, and it is probable that he did use the word “virgin” since the child is God-With-Us (one word). Either way, the whole passage, in its final fulfillment, clearly shows that YHWH was not referring to someone in the Court of Ahaz.
So, once again, Jesus is the only contender who fulfills the prophecy.
Vincent, your logic escapes me, my brother :-). But what is clear is that you either did not read my article carefully or did not understand it well. Perhaps you can reread. I normally don’t approve 4-part answers. In your case I did it. In the future, please kindly boil down your comment to one comment per posting.
Hello, I am not a theologian but I am convinced that Yeshua was born of the virgin and of the Devine Spirit. Making Yeshua “God in the flesh”. The invisible God made Himself visible through Yeshua. Man without sin. Only God has no sin. In other words Yeshua is God.
Thank you, Peter. “God in flesh” is a bit of an oversimplification and not fully consistent with Christian theology :-), but that Christ is both fully divine and fully human is how it is normally defined. Not that this makes it easier :-).
The Roman and Greek post-apostolic ‘church’ misinterpreted the NT as a Greek document to fit in to predominant pagan culture and gain congregations. This syncretistic mixture is the basis of modern Christianity. It is not the original apostolic faith, based on the Bible and what is now seen in Jewish custom.
Hebrew was rejected as evil by the Constantinian State Church. Jews were despised. Hence the idea of marriage was interpreted as following Roman/Greek ideas of engagement not Hebrew or biblical custom of qiddushim and nisuin. Virgin as a Hebrew term was not understood once the Temple was destroyed.
See my Jesus, James, Joseph and the past and future Temple available free on Academia.edu/43233588 This covers the question of the pagan origin of the Catholic Virgin Birth in depth. Se also
https://www.academia.edu/44710405 How old were Joseph and Mary when they had Jesus?
Does not GOD see a thousand years as a day gone by? So 700-800 years is less than a day.
Shalom, Miranda! Thank you for your support and encouragement! Yes, of course there is a scripture that says for God 1 day can be as 1000 years. So this is legit. However, if we read Isaiah 7 and 8 carefully, it becomes clear that at least the original manifestation of the sign was for King Ahaz and his immediate time. There is no question that in Christ this Scripture 7:14 is fulfilled; the question is how. I am convinced that Matthew understood that in Christ Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled in the sensethat the Scripture gets a new and fuller typological meaning.
Thank you professor for your insight.
I am really learning a lot
Welcome to our study group!
Thank you for this exposition. The article is well written and well researched. A sign indeed it would be if the birth is from a virgin – not as weighty if the birth is from a young woman. This is not alone, there are other prophetic text with an immediate and a future fulfillment component. I’m thankful for your insight and the clarity that you have brought forward.
Well there is another way pregnancy can be a sign. It doesn’t not have to a virgin (in King Ahaz’s situation). Someone getting pregnant after a prolong failure to get pregnant for example.
” And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus” Matt 1:25.
Me this think this verse should also help support the virginity status of Mary prior to Jesus’ conception.
Thanks Doctor for your write-ups. Really blessed by them. Receiving more understanding than before from Biblical narratives. Bless you and your team.
Blessings, Michael!
Thank You Eli. Beautiful and clear explanation once again. God Bless you and your loved ones and your mission.
Very Best
Thank you brother!
Illuminating THANK YOU PRAISE
Amen! Thank God for his light!
Dr Eli, you illuminate my mind and strengthen my faith, Praise
pardon me:
Is cremation permissible ?
what happens to the soul after death?
Does oral sex (not uncommon in modern society) violate God’s law?
That’s a lot of different questions unconnected to the article :-). Perhaps some time we will deal with them.