This one may be a bit technical, but it is worth the read to understand!
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." —Isaiah 7:14 (ESV).
The Hebrew word alma (עַלְמָה) has sparked plenty of debate, especially in Isaiah 7:14, where it’s famously tied to a prophecy about a child named Immanuel. Critics like Richard Dawkins—in his book The God Delusion—argue it just means "young woman," and not "virgin," accusing Matthew of misreading it to try to fit Mary's virgin birth of Jesus into an obscure prophecy. But a closer look at alma—its usage, root, and context—reveals that this is not the gotcha Dawkins hopes it is. I contend alma means "a virgin young woman," a holistic term for a youthful, unmarried, chaste girl. Alma refers to the whole person of that definition, distinct from the more clinical betulah (בְּתוּלָה) which refers to virginity, or the parts of virginity. Here’s why:
- Alma appears seven times in the Hebrew Bible, and in every case, it aligns not only with "young" and with "female" but also with "virgin". Each means not just a young girl, but a young virgin girl. Genesis 24:43 is a good example—Rebekah is referred to as an "alma" fetching water, explicitly a virgin whom "no man had known" (24:16). Proverbs 30:19’s "way of a man with an alma" defines courtship, not consummation. No alma is ever referred to in the Hebrew Bible as married or a mother, unlike betulah, which in Joel 1:8— refers to a "virgin" mourning her "husband". In Hebrew culture she could also be a virgin, since this state could quite possibly be what we would call a fiancée. But Alma has no such nuanced duality—Biblically at least—although if it did the same exclusion could equally apply.
- Then there’s Song of Songs 6:8: "Sixty queens, eighty concubines, and alamot without number." Queens are wives, concubines are lovers—both are sexually active by definition. Why list alamot separately if they're not distinct, and what distinction could there possibly be except that these alamot are virgins? If alamot were just "young women," some, at least, would overlap with concubines, making the distinction pointless. The text sets them apart, implying virginity. These alamot aren’t in the king’s bed—they’re a pure, untouched group, reinforcing alma as "virgin young woman" by nature, not just context.
- The root of alma—alam (ע-ל-מ), means "to conceal" or "hide", adding weight to the definition of virginity. An alma is a "hidden" young woman, her sexuality unexposed, her youth veiled in purity. If we compare alma to betulah, we find alma refers to the whole person who is a young female virgin, where betulah is more of a technical or clinical term for virginity, or the virgin parts of a girl. Deuteronomy 22:19 is a good example, demanding proof of a bride’s virginity, her virgin status, and there are other, more graphic examples as in Ezekiel 23:3. Betulah is like a lab report; alma is a living, whole, youthful and chaste person. That "hidden" nuance isn't an accident—it’s intentional, and definitional.
- Isaiah 7:14, however—Dawkins' wannabe gotcha—is the clincher: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son". God offers King Ahaz a sign "as deep as Sheol or high as heaven" (7:11) If alma means simply "young woman,"—as Dawkins contends—how is it a "sign as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven"? Young women get pregnant daily, thousands of them. A sign needs to stand out, by definition, signs are something unique. The DMV does not produce signs in camouflage because that would defeat their purpose. Isaiah would not have written "God will send a sign as miraculous as the universe... and here's what it will be... a girl will get pregnant the way girls always do." Isaiah would not have written such a thing, and his readers would not have understood it, because it would have been nonsensical. A virgin conceiving? Well now that’s a miracle, something unique, and impossible without God's intervention on the normal course of events. Isaiah chose alma because his audience knew it meant "a virgin young woman will conceive"—not ishah (generic woman) or betulah (clinical virginity alone). The Septuagint’s parthenos (virgin) backs this up, reflecting a pre-Christian Jewish reading.
Alma doesn’t just imply virginity—it defines it.
Critics might argue alma lacks betulah’s explicitness, but that misses the point. Betulah is narrow—clinical. Alma is broader, more personal, and respectful. A youthful identity where virginity is included in the definition. Dawkins’ "young woman who is not a virgin" is a nonsensical, and woefully inaccurate and disrespectful suggestion; stripping Isaiah's sign of sense and the weight of consideration it deserves. If Isaiah meant a routine birth, why would he have called it a sign? Alma as "virgin young woman" fits the text, the culture, and the prophecy’s weight.
So, alma isn’t a maybe-virgin—it’s a virgin by definition, a "hidden" girl of promise. From Rebekah to Mary, it’s consistent. Next time someone shrugs Isaiah 7:14 off as Matthew mistaking "young woman" for "virgin", point them to Song of Songs, Isaiah common sense meaning, and the "hidden" root of alma. Alma doesn’t just imply virginity—it defines it.
Brandocrasy