Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14
As a Christian reading this verse as translated in the NIV, and then seeing Matthew’s reference to it in Matthew 1:22-23, it is very easy to say that this is really cool, and then just keep on going. If we do that, we miss something that is both problematic and fascinating. Here is Matthew’s statement:
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
This is the first time Matthew cites the fulfillment by Jesus of an Old Testament prophecy, but scholars have struggled with it for centuries because the original Hebrew of Isaiah doesn’t exactly say what we have just read. In fact, there really isn’t any record of a messianic interpretation of this verse prior to Matthew. There are two reasons for this: First, as I mentioned, the Hebrew doesn’t quite say anything about a virgin, for the Hebrew word Isaiah used was “’almah” which means a young woman of marriageable age; she may or may not still be a virgin. This ambiguity is important to us because Mary’s virginity is the point of the exercise in our Matthew passage.
The second problem for scholars is the fact that this verse falls within the larger context set in Isaiah 7:1-2:
When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
Here’s what happens in Isaiah 7: The kings of Syria and Israel (Northern Kingdom) join in league together to oppose the Assyrians. They ask King Ahaz of Judah (Southern Kingdom) to join with them, but he refuses, so they march on Jerusalem to dethrone him and put a favorable king on the throne (Is. 7:6). God dispatches Isaiah to Jerusalem to tell Ahaz that the two kings will fail if Ahaz will believe God (Is. 7:3-9). Ahaz doesn’t take Isaiah’s advice, and even considers an alliance with the Assyrians (cf. 2 Kings 16:5, 7; Is. 7:17). The Lord sends Isaiah to Ahaz a second time, this time offering to give Ahaz a sign so that he will believe God, and once again Ahaz refuses (Is. 7:10-12). In 7:14, God, through Isaiah, gives him a sign anyway.
The sign God gave Ahaz in 7:14 that Matthew quotes is explained further in Isaiah 7:16:
for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
The prophet goes on to explain that their lands will be laid waste by the king of Assyria, which is what happened, and Ahaz and his kingdom were saved from the threat. Thus, it probably never occurred to Isaiah, or anyone else for that matter, that the son of 7:14 was the future Messiah at all; that is until Matthew got it.
What Matthew saw was a broader meaning that applied to the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promises; consider the larger context of Isaiah 7-11: It is full of the theme of exile (7:18-25; 8:1-10, 19-22) right beside the theme of God’s presence (Immanuel, 8:8, 10) and the clear promise of a great son of David (9:6-7; 11:1). What Matthew understood was that there may well have been a fulfillment in Isaiah’s time of certain prophetic promises, and that those early fulfillments might very well foreshadow an ultimate fulfillment by the Person of Jesus Christ, which is an important concept for us to keep in mind as we go forward in his Gospel.
Life Project Blog 
Pingback: Matthew’s Interesting Use of Isaiah 7:14 | A disciple's study
Hey Don, are you coming back to this passage again? I am really interested in anything else you might say about it. I have had some “friends” just beating me silly over this passage. I understand the issues with it, and I also understand how most of us consider it. So, I hope you are coming back to it some? Would it be accurate to say you see a prophecy in there of the virgin birth, just maybe not as narrow and specific as we sometimes make it? I don’t want to mischaracterize what you said, but want to be able to address this difficult passage when It comes up.
To be honest Wally, I wasn’t planning on posting on this passage again in this series. To be very clear on how I see it, we have Matthew’s interpretation in Matt. 1. He was an Apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, therefore his interpretation of Isaiah must be right, and that’s enough for me personally.
With that said, the problem is still there from an academic point of view. Yet Matthew’s quotation is essentially correct when you consider that he, as NT authors generally do, is quoting the LXX not the Hebrew, and the fact that the LXX rendered the Hebrew as “virgin” into the Greek does show that some Jewish scholars saw that as a likely meaning in the original.
In my post, i went through the larger context in which the passage is found in Isaiah. I explained it in my post taking an apocalyptic approach as Matthew did to have it in Matt. 1. Now you will recall that in our discussions here about the book of Revelation, there is considerable tension between those who take a literal approach to prophecy with those who take an apocalyptic approach, and in the academic environment relative to the Matthew passage, the point of difference is just exactly the same as it is in Revelation: Literal or apocalyptic. Matthew’s application here is apocalyptic, and not literal.
I’m not sure if that helps or confuses 🙂 If you have more questions, drop me an email, and tell me the specific point of contention and I’ll see if I can help you
Actually Don that helps a lot as it gives me a starting place for study and that is always the best way for me to learn. Thanks! As to what is the specific point of contention? That would be anything I say to the ones with the issue lol. In this case it is simply a complete denial that the passage in question is prophetic in any way at all not just in a literal one.
OK, good luck with that and please let me know if I can help!
I will Don!
Hit enter too soon. Just wanted to say thanks again!
🙂
Good morning, Don;
Perhaps I might shed a little light on some of this. I’m sure this will be somewhat lengthy as it’s involved somewhat. But please bear with me and then perhaps allow me to now whether, or not it helped you and your readers….. Thank you.
In Isaiah 7:12 God’s offer of a sign of His deliverance is ridiculed by the arrogance and unbelief of Ahaz. The Lord offered a positive miracle to bolster Ahaz’ faith, inviting him to name whatever sign he desired. It could be anything from heaven above to earth beneath. But Ahaz, having made up his mind to put his trust in Assyria, put Isaiah off with a hypocritically pious pretext by misquoting and distorting the meaning of the commandment in the Law of Moses not to tempt the LORD (Deuteronomy 6:16). Later Ahaz would pay tribute to the king of Assyria with the sacred Vessels of the Temple in exchange for his help in defeating Israel and Syria. For this he would pay with his life and hasten judgment upon Judah and Jerusalem.
· Isaiah 7:13-16 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that you abhor shall be forsaken by both her kings. KJV
In Isaiah 7:14 the phrase, “a virgin shall conceive,” is most likely mistranslated; the Hebrew word for virgin is `alma and does not necessarily signify an untouched virgin (or maiden); rather `alma is used in the Hebrew Scriptures for a very young woman that has never been married, and therefore the assumption is that she is also a virgin.
The man child born was to eat butter (curds) and honey as the standard diet, the result of the coming Assyrian destruction of the crops, as well as those of the neighboring nations (cf. 2 Chronicles 28). This diet would continue as the result of God’s judgment also upon Judah until the time stated in verse 16, “before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.” This was considered by the Jews as the age of legal accountability (doubtless twelve years of age) and would come about in the year 721 BC after the destructive campaigns of Shalmaneser V and Sargon.
At this point we can begin to form conclusions as to the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 and the use of the word for the promised child’s name as Immanuel. The literal meaning of the text must first be applied. Within a short time after this prophecy was spoken Isaiah’s wife, a virgin at the time this prophetic promise was given, gave birth to a son as the “sign” God promised (Isaiah 8:1-4). Judah’s deliverance from Syria and Israel was the birth of her son, whom she later named Maher-shalal-hash-baz as God commanded her husband Isaiah in Isaiah 8:1.
The boy’s name Maher-shalal-hash-baz means, “hasten to the booty, rush to the spoil,” and was to be the fulfillment of the “sign” God gave to Judah as a token of the successful Assyrian assault upon Damascus and Samaria. This assault would crush both those kingdoms before the infant boy shall have knowledge to cry, “My father, and my mother,” and the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria were taken away by the king of Assyria (Isaiah 8:4) within three years. This prophecy was completely fulfilled in the capture of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria in 732 by Tiglath-Pilesser III.
Two questions must first be answered before we can properly discuss the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and the name Immanuel as it applies to the birth of Christ in Matthew 1:23. First, why didn’t Isaiah name his firstborn son Immanuel? Second, some discrepancies are involved in the time sequences given, such as Isaiah 7:3, when Isaiah was commanded by Yahweh to take his “son” named Shear-jashub with him before Isaiah actually spoke the prophecy to Ahaz. Did Isaiah have more than one wife? That is very doubtful. How could he have another son then, especially since God said the sign to Judah would be the birth of a son to a woman that was chaste?
This potential contradiction can easily be resolved by the Hebrew use of the word for, “son,” (Isaiah 7:3) as characterization or as members of a certain group, such as prophets. It is probable that Isaiah’s “son” named Shear-jashub is really one of his disciples, not a birth son.
The only other mention of Immanuel is found in Isaiah 8:8. In Isaiah 8:5-8 God sends the prophet to rebuke Ahaz and Judah for its own wickedness, and their MISUSE of the words, “O Immanuel,” to boast that God’s favor was with them. You see, when God promised the sign that a virgin with child would give birth, He did not specify what HE wanted the child to be named, but instead He warned what the child would be “called.” Yahweh did not specify what He wanted the child to be NAMED until afterward. Compare the two texts below:
· Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. KJV
· Isaiah 8:3 Then said the LORD to me, “Call his NAME Maher-shalal-hash-baz.” KJV
In Hebrew culture the father always named the firstborn son, and so God came to Isaiah, and told him what name he was to give the boy. In Isaiah 7:14 there is an open-ended statement concerning the name of the son to be born, perhaps allowing the House of David (Judah) one last chance to repent and make things right before complete destruction swept over them. Apparently instead of repenting Judah used the name, “O Immanuel,” as a sort of boast that God was “with them” because Assyria had brutally destroyed Samaria (Israel).
Isaiah 8:8 is Yahweh’s burning anger against Ahaz and Judah for abusing the name of the promised sign (Immanuel) and using it as a sort of chant for their piety, when in reality they had bribed the king of Assyria by giving him the gold implements used in the Temple to attack and defeat Samaria. Yahweh brought heavy judgment upon Ahaz and his people. Because they refused to trust Yahweh the king of Assyria assaulted the House of David with unparalleled oppression and the tyranny of the Assyrian Empire.
Immanuel may also have been the thankful cry when both parents (Isaiah & his wife) when they beheld the fulfillment of God’s word (i.e. – the birth of their son). But from this time on Judah lost its physical blessing as the heritage of the House of David. The prophecy would find fulfillment in the spiritual land of the promised Redeemer, the Messianic antitype of Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
Scourged by Assyrian invasion Judah (as the House of David) would later realize its physical blessings vicariously thru Joseph, son of David and husband of the virgin Mary. Judah’s genetic ties (as the House of David) remained in place to be fulfilled in the life of Joseph who would be granted the privilege of raising Jesus to prepare him from childhood to one day become the promised Messiah and descendent of the throne of David.
Matthew 1:23 Immanuel fulfilled in the New Testament
When Joseph was betrothed to Mary she was a virgin and this was especially important in Hebrew culture where virginity is not taken lightly. When he discovered his new wife was pregnant before they’d even had conjugal relations, Joseph was devastated, hurt, broken, angry, worried at the shame it would bring to her, to her family, to him and to his family, and yet he was such a kind and merciful man of God, he decided to put Mary away privately, which involved transporting her far away where no one would recognize her.
God had carefully handpicked this young married couple for a myriad of reasons, all of which cannot be discussed in the short length of this study. Three primary criterions had to be met in order for Yahweh to fulfill his promises to the patriarchs in the OT, especially to the House of David. David was a man after God’s own heart that was so beloved by Yahweh that God gave him a promise that one of his future descendants would one day ascend to his throne and rule over Israel in righteousness from that day forward. Joseph was descended from the line of Judah, from whence David came, so he met this important requirement according to the flesh.
Not sure if any of this lengthy statement give you hope of an answer, although I truly do hope so…… Thank you for raising the questions above. They are important and greatly received.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you and yours….
Yours in Christ;
Michael
Thank you Michael, I’m sure everyone will find your remarks as fascinating as I have!
Thank you Don for saying so..
God bless.