Was the Virgin Birth a Mistranslation? The Real Evidence from Mary, the Angel, and Paul

There are still people today who argue that the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 does not mean “virgin” and that Christians built the doctrine of the virgin birth on a mistranslation. So, let us set that entire debate aside for a moment. Let us accept, for the sake of argument, that the word in Isaiah was mistranslated. Let us acknowledge the critics' claim at its strongest point and simply set the word virgin to the side. What remains is far more powerful than they expect, because their argument collapses under the evidence given by Mary, the angel, and Paul.

Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph. In her culture, just as in many Asian and Middle Eastern cultures today, a woman pledged in this way was understood to be a virgin. Purity before marriage was taken with the utmost seriousness. A young unmarried woman was, by cultural expectation and religious duty, a virgin. This is a fact known across history, anthropology, and Scripture.

Now look at Mary’s own words. When the angel tells her she will conceive, she responds, “I have not known a man” (Luke 1:34). This is the strongest and clearest way a woman of her time could say that she was a virgin. She was not confused. She was not speaking symbolically. She was stating biological reality. This raises a very simple question: Was Mary lying to the angel? As if the angel would not know. Think about that for a moment.

Next, look at the angel’s reply. The angel does not say, “After you marry Joseph, you will conceive and have a child.” Instead, the angel says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35). The angel attributes the conception directly to God. This raises a second question: Was the angel lying?

Later, when reflecting on the incarnation of Christ, Paul uses the phrase “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4). Paul was a highly trained scholar in the Old Testament and was once zealous enough for Jewish law that he attempted to destroy Christianity. His wording is deliberate. “Born of a woman” affirms the true humanity of Jesus while pointing unmistakably to a conception without a human father. This aligns perfectly with the Christian understanding of the virgin birth. When we place Paul’s words alongside the testimony of Mary and the message of the angel, the evidence is clear, direct, and impossible to ignore. This raises the third question: Was Paul lying?

If Mary was telling the truth, if the angel was telling the truth, and if Paul was telling the truth, then the conclusion is unavoidable: Jesus was conceived without a human father. The conception was the work of the Holy Spirit. No debate about a single Hebrew word can overturn the combined testimony of Mary, the angel, and the Gospel narrative.

This leaves only two possible positions. Either Mary, the angel, and Paul were all lying, or all were telling the truth. There is no middle ground. If they lied, then the entire Christian faith collapses. If they told the truth, then the virgin birth stands as a divine act that reveals who Jesus truly is.

Those who reject the virgin birth often focus on the smallest linguistic detail while ignoring the central claim made by Scripture itself. The evidence is right in front of us. Mary said she had never known a man. The angel said the conception would be from God. Paul said Jesus was “born of a woman,” meaning Mary and no man. The birth of Jesus was not ordinary. It was the entrance of God into human history.