How does Matthew 1:22–23 fulfill Isaiah 7?

Explanation:

Matthew states that Jesus’ birth to the virgin Mary fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah, and then quotes from Isaiah 7:14. To determine Matthew’s intention, it is important to read and understand the original prophecy of Isaiah. There we find that King Ahaz and the house of David are afraid of two enemies, namely, Israel and Syria (Isaiah 7:1–2). God tells King Ahaz not to worry because those enemies will be defeated (Isaiah 7:7). When the king is too afraid to ask God for a sign to confirm this, God announces a sign anyway. He says that a child will be born (Isaiah 7:14), and before that child knows right from wrong, the enemies of the house of David will be defeated (Isaiah 7:16). It seems clear that the prophecy of Isaiah is meant to be fulfilled in the near future.¹

Since the prophecy was fulfilled in King Ahaz’s time, we should assume that Matthew interprets the passage typologically. Matthew reflects on the Old Testament and identifies God working in history in ways that anticipate Christ.² The son born as a sign in King Ahaz’s day is a type of the one to come, Jesus Christ.

Counterargument:

Isaiah prophesied that before the child knows right from wrong, the two enemies of the house of David would be defeated (Isaiah 7:16). The above argument takes this to mean that the prophecy must therefore be fulfilled in the near future from when it was pronounced. Of course, if the prophecy is a predictive prophecy about the birth of Jesus, then those enemies were defeated before the child knew right from wrong, because they were defeated before Jesus was even born. Thus, since the child does not need to be born in the near future, but only after the enemies are defeated, this leaves one possibility that the prophecy is a predictive prophecy about the birth of Jesus.

Response to counterargument:

While it is the case that Jesus was born after those enemies of Judah were defeated, such an interpretation plays loose with the immediate context. When Isaiah states that a child will be born, the child is born as a sign for King Ahaz (Isaiah 7:12, Isaiah 7:14), who was too afraid to ask for a sign himself. This implies that the sign would be given during King Ahaz’s lifetime. Also, when we continue reading, we find that Isaiah and his wife give birth to a child and name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isaiah 8:3). Then God states that before Isaiah’s child knows how to cry, My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and Samaria would be carried away by the king of Assyria (Isaiah 8:4). It is not difficult to notice the parallels between a child being born who would not yet reach an age of maturity before Judah’s enemies would be defeated and the fulfillment of this in the birth of Isaiah’s son. All of this implies a fulfillment of the prophecy contemporary to King Ahaz, and hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

Of course, Matthew sees that Jesus fulfills the sign of this child more fully.

Possible weakness:

Matthew uses the Greek term πληρόω (to fulfill) to describe the relationship between Jesus’ birth and the prophecy of Isaiah. Taken at face value, the term means fulfill, and we normally think of a prophecy as incomplete until it is fulfilled. This implies that Isaiah’s prophecy was not fulfilled, even if it came to fruition in part, until Jesus was born, because Isaiah literally prophesied about the birth of Jesus. But fulfill can be understood in the sense of complete.³ In that case, one could argue that while the prophecy was partially fulfilled in Isaiah’s time, the events anticipated the coming of Christ. Once Jesus was born the fullness of what God spoke through Isaiah came to completion.

Explanation:

When Matthew reads Isaiah 7:14, he perceives that the prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day through the birth of a son. Still, he knows that Judah has subsequently been exiled and returned from Babylon, so there is a sense in which God’s plan is not yet complete. When he reads Isaiah 7:14, he reads it within the broader context, which includes Isaiah 9:1–7. In that passage the prophet states that a child will be born who would be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6).

As Matthew reflects on Jesus’ ministry, he knows that Jesus is the child of Isa 9:6, and he cannot overlook the fact that Jesus was born to a virgin. Recognizing this, he sees that Isaiah predicted both the birth of a son contemporary with King Ahaz, and the birth of the Saviour, Jesus Christ, in Isaiah 7:14.⁶

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that it suggests that the knowledge that Isaiah’s prophecy concerns both the near and the far is reserved to those who have been divinely illuminated. While it might be that certain theologically significant statements require divine illumination to be fully grasped, the plain meaning should be accessible to any careful reader. The double fulfillment view asks us to reserve the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 such that the meaning is inaccessible to ordinary believers.⁷

A related view, but one that does not put forward the enigmatic double entendre of this double fulfillment view, is the typological view (see Interpretation 1). The typological view posits that God’s work in history anticipates the coming of Christ. This means that after the full revelation of God’s plan comes to light through the ministry of Christ, believers can reflect on the Old Testament through a Christian lens and identify God’s providential hand as it orchestrated and predicted the coming of Christ through various signs and miracles.⁸ When Matthew reads Isaiah 7:14, he sees the birth of a child in King Ahaz’s time as a type of the one who was to come.

Explanation:

Isaiah predicts that a child will be born as a sign that King Ahaz’s enemies would be defeated. While this may have been fulfilled in the king’s own time, there is also a sense in which the fulfillment fell short of the prediction. The fact is, Judah would soon be defeated and exiled to Babylon. Given Matthew’s convictions of who God was, he would have known that more was yet to come, and when he reads Isaiah in light of Jesus’ birth, he sees that God’s fuller promises has finally been fulfilled.⁹

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that it overlooks the immediate context of Isaiah 7:1–25. God does not promise more than the fact that King Ahaz’s enemies will be defeated. In fact, the passage is not about conquering one’s enemies, but about God using the king of Assyria to bring judgment. In fact, God states that judgment at the hands of the king of Assyria will fall not only on Syria and Israel but also Judah (Isaiah 7:17).

Possible weakness:

The one weakness of this view is that it is hard to distinguish from the typological view, other than that it assumes an abstract connection between a near and far fulfillment that may be unwarranted. Both the double fulfillment and the typological view hold that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled during King Ahaz’s day. The double fulfillment view holds that although Isaiah did not know it, he also predicted the birth of Jesus. The reason Matthew can discern the prediction of Jesus' birth is because he read Isaiah 9:1–7, saw that this aspect of the prophecy had not been fulfilled, and was divinely inspired. While it is true that Matthew was divinely inspired, if God’s work in history anticipates the ministry of Christ, Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is accessible to all who read Scripture through a Christian lens. The typological view opens the way of Christological interpretation without impediment.

Explanation:

In the Old Testament, prophetic signs serve one of two functions: they serve as either present persuaders or future confirmation.¹³ An example of a present persuader is found in Exodus 4:8–9. There, God instructs Moses to perform signs in order to persuade Pharoah to let the Israelites go. If the first sign does not produce the intended result, Moses is to perform another sign. An example of a future confirmation sign comes in the previous chapter of Exodus when God appears to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:3–4). Moses finds it difficult to accept that Pharaoh will free the Israelites (Exodus 3:11). God tells Moses that he will be with Moses, and a future sign will confirm this (Exodus 3:12). After Moses leads the people from Egypt, he will know that God was with him because he will worship God at the mountain where he stands (Exodus 3:12).¹⁴

With these two types of prophetic sign in mind, we can deduce that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:1–25 is about a sign of future confirmation, which Matthew recognizes as fulfilled in Jesus’ birth.¹⁵ The reason we know this is a sign of future confirmation is because the sign comes after the contemporary situation of the prophecy. The text tells us that the prophecy was spoken to King Ahaz of Judah (Isaiah 7:10). Enemies are threatening Ahaz and Jerusalem with destruction. A child will be born as a sign, but the child is born after the land of Judah is ravaged by enemies so that only curds and honey remain in the land (Isaiah 7:15). This implies that the sign was not a present persuader but a future confirmation.¹⁶

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it misunderstands the timing of the sign. The text indicates that the sign would be fulfilled in Ahaz’s lifetime. The chronology can easily be traced. In Isaiah 7:2 we read that the house of David was afraid that Syria and Ephraim planned to wage war against Jerusalem. God prophesies to King Ahaz of Judah through the prophet Isaiah not to fear these nations. In Isaiah 7:14 we read that a sign will be given to Ahaz. A child will be born to a young woman who will name the son Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14). Before that child grows up to know right from wrong, the land of the two kings whom Ahaz fears will be made desolate (Isaiah 7:16). In Isaiah 8:3 we find out that a child was in fact born to Isaiah, and before the child was old enough to cry Father or Mother the spoil of Samaria and Damascus was carried away by Assyria.

Added to this, the notion that we should categorize the sign as a present persuader or future confirmation is not a fair assertion. The fact is that there could be more categories for prophetic signs than just these two. The point is that the chronology of the text suggests that the sign was contemporary to King Ahaz, whether it was meant to persuade him or simply to display God’s providence.

Explanation:

In order to understand the prophecy of Isaiah, it is important to delineate the flow of his thought. Writers often seek to convey broad themes in their writing, and they do this by articulating and combining smaller themes that support the broader theme. By looking for how smaller themes connect into larger themes, one can trace an author’s flow of thought from one broad theme to the next. This allows exegetes to interpret smaller themes that are contained within an author’s flow of thought in light of the broader theme of that thought.

The passage quoted by Matthew 1:23 is Isaiah 7:14, and to understand Isaiah 7:14 we need to consider the broader themes in Isaiah’s flow of thought. A careful reading shows that Isaiah likely carries one or two broad themes from Isaiah 7:1 – 9:7, so we must consider that entire section to make sense of Isaiah 7:14. When we do, we find that the promised son is born and named Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14). Immanuel will possess the land (Isaiah 8:8) and thwart all opponents (Isaiah 8:10). He will also appear in the land of Galilee as a great light to the people who walk in darkness (Isaiah 9:1–2). He is the son who will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6).¹⁷ Since none of these titles can reference a purely human child, these must refer to Jesus Christ, whom the prophecy is about.

Counterargument:

It might be that Isaiah has one overarching thought/theme in mind that he carries from Isaiah 7:1 – 9:11. Still, we must interpret the smaller themes in light of the immediate context. A verse must make sense within the immediate context. In the case of Isaiah 7:14 we learn that the birth of a child will be a sign for King Ahaz. Before the child knows how to refuse evil and do good, the land of the kings that Ahaz is afraid will be made desolate (Isaiah 7:15). According to the immediate context, the prophecy will be fulfilled during Ahaz’s lifetime.

Interestingly, when we go out one level further from the immediate context, we learn that a son is born to Isaiah, named Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isaiah 8:3). Isaiah notes that before the child knows how to cry My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria (Isaiah 8:4). The language parallels that of Isaiah 7:14–16. In other words, while the child is still an infant (and does not yet know right from wrong (Isaiah 7:16)) the two kings who threaten Judah will be defeated by Assyria.¹⁸

The immediate context implies that, even if Isaiah prophecies about Jesus in Isaiah 9:6, the child born in Isaiah 7:14 was contemporary to King Ahaz.

Explanation:

The prophet Isaiah uses the term עַלְמָה to denote the kind of woman who will give birth to a son who would be a sign. Oftentimes עַלְמָה can be taken to mean virgin. Since we have no record of a virgin birth in Scripture other than Jesus, we should assume that by writing that a עַלְמָה will give birth, this is a prophetic prediction for the birth of Jesus.¹⁹

Counterargument:

Unfortunately, this argument is not enough to identify Isaiah 7:14 as predictive prophecy. The reason for this is because the term עַלְמָה does not mean virgin strictly, but also carries the sense of young woman.^20,21,22,23 In fact, of the seven occurrences of עַלְמָה in the Old Testament, the NIV translates the term young woman or girl five times, and only twice as virgin.

Possible weakness:

The possible weakness of this view is that it overlooks the contemporary situation of the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah was sent to prophecy to King Ahaz. When the king refuses to ask for a sign, the prophet says that God will send one on his own accord. This implies that the recipient of the sign would be King Ahaz. If King Ahaz is to be the recipient of the sign, at least some aspect of the prophecy must have been fulfilled in Ahaz’s own day.

Interestingly, although King Ahaz is the one who fails to ask for a sign, Isaiah responds by saying a sign will be given to the house of David. This leaves open the possibility that the sign was not for King Ahaz per se, but for the whole house of David. This could explain Matthew’s concern to articulate the genealogy of David through the exile, to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:2–17).