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
Introduction
Many Trinitarians claim that Isaiah 7:14 is a predictive prophecy of Jesus being born, and Matthew 1:23 is denoting the fulfillment of this prophecy. The prophecy is to state that Jesus will be born of a virgin woman, his name will be Emmanuel/Immanuel, meaning “God with us,” therefore, Jesus is God incarnated to be here on earth with us.
Most Christians are misunderstanding Matthew’s intentions when he quotes OT passages in the way that he does. Generally, it is Christians who have little to no knowledge of the OT who make this mistaken assumption. They believe that Matthew is going through the OT, writing a list of all prophecies that are about the future Messiah, and his gospel is to show how Jesus fulfilled all of these prophecies. This isn’t what Matthew is doing. Many of the passages Matthew is referencing in regards to Jesus already had a fulfillment in the OT period that has already been written about. Matthew also references many things in the OT without actually directly quoting it, and yet still applies it to Jesus. If we read the context of the verses Matthew is quoting, we will see that these usually have nothing to do with the Messiah directly (see Hosea 11:1 quoted in Matthew 2:15).
So why is Matthew referencing these things and applying them to Jesus? There are two things that must be considered. First is typology. The second is dual fulfillment.
Typology
Typology is an OT shadow that points forward to a great NT substance. Types and antitypes. In my article on typology, I stated:
Matthew 1:23: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means God with us).
It is a very misunderstood passage, which is a typological reference as well. Matthew is not declaring that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled only when Jesus was born. Immanuel was a child during that time of Isaiah who would serve as a sign for king Ahaz. Matthew is making a typological reference. In the same way Immanuel was a child that served as a sign that God was with his people and had not abandoned them under king Ahaz 800 years prior, Jesus is now a sign to the nation of Israel that God has not left his people, even after 400 years of God’s silence and sending no prophets. Jesus is regarded as the antitype of this OT event.
Matthew is pointing to the event of Immanuel as being a type of Christ. In the same way that the cup bearer and the baker who were in prison with Joseph were types of Gestus and Dismas were with Jesus on the cross, Immanuel is an OT figure which is in some way like Jesus.
Near and far prophecy, dual fulfillment
Second is dual fulfillment. Many prophecies in the OT were prophetic events that had a fulfillment in their original time period, but they also point forward to a secondary fulfillment in Christ. This is very similar to typology, but not necessarily identical. Take, for example, Jesus’ question to the Pharisees.
Matthew 22:41-42: “Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.”
How did they know the Messiah was to be the Son of David? One way in which they knew this was 2 Samuel 7:12-14: “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men.” This was a prophecy which was fulfilled in Solomon, as we read explicitly in 1 Chronicles 22:9-10, and 28:6 (compare also Psalm 45:6 LXX which directly attributes this passage to Solomon). Though this was directly fulfilled in Solomon, the Pharisees recognized this prophecy to also pertain to the prophesied Messiah. They knew he would be the Son of David. Further, Hebrews 1:5 quotes this passage directly in reference to Jesus.
Another example of a dual prophecy is found in Deuteronomy 18:15-18, where God promises to make a prophet rise up from among Israel and put his words in his mouth. This was directly fulfilled in the time of Israel in Joshua. Yet, the Pharisees knew this was a greater fulfillment of another prophet, because when questioning John the Baptist, they ask him if he is “the prophet,” probably in reference to this passage (John 1:21).
Our final example is found in Jesus’ final words on the cross. “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” That is, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46). This was a direct quotation of Psalm 22:1. This passage was written as a Psalm about the nation of Israel, and there is no hint in this Psalm that it is pointing to having another future fulfillment, and yet Jesus himself is showing its secondary fulfillment in his death on the cross.
In these examples of dual fulfillment, we find references to prophecies that were true both in their time and later in Jesus’ time. These prophecies gave little to no indication that they would have another fulfillment later in the future. So also is the case for Isaiah 7:14. Many are confused by the prophecy, because they read Matthew saying that it is fulfilled in Jesus’ birth, and so they assume that each prophecy is only fulfilled once, this must not have been fulfilled in the time of Isaiah. This is untrue. Matthew is showing that there is a greater fulfillment of this prophecy in Christ, even though it originally was not about Christ. In the same way, our examples were about Solomon, Joshua, and Israel, yet all were fulfilled in Christ, so also is the case for Immanuel’s birth (John 5:39). Attributing a secondary fulfillment to Jesus does not negate the near fulfillment in the time it was written.
Isaiah 7:14 must be about Jesus only?
Some argue that Isaiah 7:14 must necessarily be about Jesus only because it says that a “virgin” will give birth. First, nowhere does the Bible say that there was only one virgin birth. So assuming this could not happen twice is a poor argument. Second, the original Hebrew word does not necessarily mean “virgin,” but a young woman. This word can refer to either. In Isaiah’s time, it was a young woman giving birth to a son. In Jesus’ greater fulfillment, the young woman was also a virgin. The text is ambiguous and can apply to both cases. This does not limit the fulfillment in the original occurrence. Some argue that since Matthew quotes from the LXX directly in this verse, we must look at the Greek word used (παρθένος, parthenos) more specifically means “virgin” than merely “young woman.” This is debated based on other Hebrew words, which were translated the same way by the LXX, but granting this to be true, this still does not invalidate the near fulfillment. Given by the first reason listed above, but also because the prophecy does not necessarily means that the virgin is giving birth as a virgin. The text in the LXX can very easily be understood as someone who is now a virgin will give birth later on when she is not a virgin. There’s nothing that directly and necessarily implies that this woman is perpetually a virgin, nor a virgin at the time of conception or birth. It only means that she is a virgin at the time the prophecy is being uttered. Though Matthew uses this prophecy in a different way, this does not change the original meaning or understanding of the prophecy.
It should be striking to us that Jesus is never called “Immanuel” anywhere else in Scripture. This should also be another clue by Matthew to indicate that this is only a dual fulfillment of the prophecy. Jesus is variously called Messiah, Son of man, son of David, son of God, lord, and king in Matthew’s gospel. Nothing prevented him from using the name Immanuel as a title or name of Jesus elsewhere in his gospel account.
What “Immanuel” means
Immanuel is generally translated to mean “God with us.” People take this meaning of the name to mean that the one whose named “Immanuel” must be God, and God is literally on earth with us. There are a number of problems with this. First, the Hebrew words that make up this name are translated literally as: “with us God.” The word “god” comes from “el,” the last two letters of the name. “El” is a Hebrew word that more expresses “power” than how we typically would understand “God” in English. When Jesus says at his trial that he will come “at the right hand of power,” this is the translation of the Hebrew word “El.” It can be the power of a warrior, a king, or godlike power. This is an extremely common inclusion among Hebrew names. Ezekiel, Michael, and Israel all end in “el.” As noted in the article on Isaiah 9:6, Gabriel’s name comes from the same two words for “mighty god” in this verse, which is “gibbohr” and “el.” Even more explicitly, name Jewish names in the OT have the name of God in them. Jehu literally means “Jah is he.” Would we understand Jehu to literally be Jehovah, or Yahweh, because of what his name means? Joshua, Jehoshaphat, Elijah, Abijah, and Hezekiah all have Yah, Jah, or Jeh in the beginning or end. Hezekiah means “strengthens Yah,” or “Yahweh strengthens.” Taking the meaning of a name and superimposing it onto the bearer of the name would turn many of the OT figures into God himself. Many places, humans, and angels have these kinds of names. They are called “Theophoric” names. Which simply means they are names that bear a God. Calling Jesus Immanuel makes him God just as much as calling the archangel Michael “God.”
The name “with us (is) God” is to refer to the role that Immanuel (and secondarily, Jesus) would play in their lives. They are signs from God that he had not left his people. A plain reading of Isaiah 7:1-13 will show very clearly what is going on in Isaiah’s time. Ahaz is king of Judah (Isaiah 7:1) and he is in fear of his nation being destroyed by surrounding armies, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel (7:1-3). So God sends Isaiah to Ahaz to comfort him and tell him that these nations will not win against Judah (7:4-9). God gives Ahaz a chance to ask for a sign from him (7:10-11), but Ahaz refuses under the pretense that this would be to put God to the test (7:12). So God tells Ahaz what sign he will give him, through the prophet Isaiah, and that sign is that a child will be born to him who will show Ahaz that God has not left his people of Judah (7:13-15). Before this child grows to the age of knowing right from wrong, the two lands which threaten Ahaz will be desolate (7:16). The very purpose of this passage is that God will cause a woman to conceive a child, and when Ahaz sees her carry the child, birth the child, and the child grows to know right from wrong, this will be a sign and reminder to Ahaz that he has not been left by God, and God will make good on his promises to protect Judah from Israel and Syria.
How Jesus Fulfills This Prophecy
Jesus was a child who was born as a sign that God had not left his nation. Though there were no prophets for 400 years, Israel was in exile, no inspired writers were coming forth, and God had not left them. Jesus was God’s sign that he was with his people. Matthew appropriates this passage to Jesus as a secondary fulfillment of this prophecy by Isaiah. He is not saying Jesus was the child born to Ahaz, nor is he saying that Jesus, the child born centuries after Ahaz death would be the fulfillment of that prophecy. It couldn’t possibly fulfill that prophecy because Jesus wasn’t a sign for Ahaz. But he was a sign for the nation of Israel in the same way. Many ignore the beginning of Isaiah 7:14, “Behold, the Lord will give you a sign,” and they ignore the context of Isaiah 7. They read Matthew’s quotation only, with little to no knowledge of what Matthew is referencing and expecting to understand what Matthew is saying.
Jesus is a parallel to Immanuel, a child born during the time of Isaiah and king Ahaz, as a child born as a sign that God had not left his people, but rather, he was still with them.