7

(KJV)Matthew 1:22-23

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, [23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

(KJV)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.

The prophecy was given around 740 years before Christ during the reign of Ahaz king of Judah, Judah was threatened with an invasion by the united armies of Syria & Israel, Ahaz was alarmed,instead of seeking the lord he sought help from Assyria. The prophet Isaiah came to ask Ahaz to seek for a sign & he refused so the prophet asked for a sign & it was given that a virgin should have a son.The prophecy was designed to signify to Ahaz that the land will be delivered from its calamities.What I find difficult to understand is in what sense this prophecy should be said to be fulfilled in Matthew 1:22-23 around 740 years later,since this was supposed to be a sign to Ahaz that Judah shall not be destroyed, shouldn't this have taken place within the time frame of Ahaz according to the context of Isaiah 7.Most signs in the bible took place within the timeframe of recipients like Zechariah (Luke 1:20) & Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:9)

Revelation Lad
  • 16,645
  • 7
  • 46
  • 104
collen ndhlovu
  • 23,642
  • 42
  • 180
  • 347
  • 3
    BTW, Isaiah did not say "a virgin" - he said "the young woman". This was translated into the LXX as "a virgin" but that is not what Isaiah prophesied. – Dick Harfield Dec 27 '16 at 21:45
  • This seems to be quite a different question than Does Isaiah 7:14 indicate that the young woman is already pregnant? even if it shares the same OT passage. – Dick Harfield Dec 27 '16 at 21:47
  • This is a duplicate of a question asked many times before: Does Isaiah 7:14 refer to a virgin – user34445 Dec 27 '16 at 21:54
  • @ user34445 ,Simply Christian The question is not about whether the young woman was a virgin or not, but its fulfilment as alluded to by Matthew( timeframe) – collen ndhlovu Dec 27 '16 at 22:15
  • 3
    This same question could be asked of a large number of other uses of the OT in the NT, many of them in Matthew. As this Q stands, the answer is either "Because Matthew says it is", or it is simply "opinion based". Recommend OP look at the "sensus plenior" Q&As for some "hermeneutical" framework here. (I don't see the two currenlty linked questions as duplicates, though.) – Dɑvïd Dec 27 '16 at 22:48
  • 1
    @ David,thank you just read the sensus plenior, its an eye opener didn't know about it – collen ndhlovu Dec 28 '16 at 04:35
  • If Isaiah's reference was to a virgin, do you think it could be a prophecy of in vitro fertilisation? – Dick Harfield Dec 28 '16 at 21:51
  • 3
    The argument "Isaiah did not say virgin" is silly. If you say in English "a girl was on the swing" virgin is implied since 'girls' are not typically thought to be sexually active. In Hebrew the word used nearly absolutely implies virginity. To say otherwise is sophistry. – user34445 Dec 30 '16 at 03:07

10 Answers10

5

As I sketched out in this answer, Ahaz's refusal to ask for a sign is critical to interpreting what follows. For what follows is not best conceived in context as a sign "designed to signify to Ahaz that the land will be delivered from its calamities." Rather, it is indeed a prophecy of judgment.

Ahaz was already told that the Syrian/Ephraim alliance would fail (Isa 7:7-9). When the LORD has Isaiah ask Ahaz to indicate a sign (v.10-11), Ahaz's refusal to (v.12) is not looked upon with favor. Verse 13 is then a key shift in the narrative to the prophecy (NKJV):

Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?

Two things are critical to see:

  1. Ahaz's refusal to do what the LORD asked of him is wearying to God, as much of the behavior of the lineage of David had been (both the "you" references in the verse are plural, not singular, in the Hebrew). So Ahaz is being addressed, but obliquely in his connection to the lineage of David, which leads to the second point...
  2. Ahaz is no longer the sole referent, but rather the referent expands to the "house of David" (any and all those in the line of David, Ahaz included, but not exclusively or even necessarily to him alone). So the prophecy is for the "house of David" to pay attention to, such that when it is fulfilled, they will take notice of it.

The following prophecy is twofold:

  1. A child will be born under specific circumstances (see the previous answer linked to with respect to the virgin aspects, but also below for a key footnote I had there that is really more related to this question [hence why it was a footnote in the other question]), a child whose name implies God is with His people again (Isa 7:14-16)
  2. But more immediately, judgment to Judah will be coming (i.e., God not with His people). That judgment is not by the Syria/Ephraim alliance (that was already made clear), but rather by Assyria (Isa 7:17-25), the nation Ahaz would look to for help against the alliance (2 Kings 16), which judgment comes about in Ahaz's son Hezekiah's days (2 Kings 18), though Jerusalem is spared (and Judah for a time) because of Hezekiah's looking/prayer to God (2 Kings 19:20).

As to how the prophecy of Isa 7:14-16 can be conceived as fulfilled in Christ, I'll reproduce from what was my text in footnote 1 in the other answer I linked to above, but fits better in the text of this answer. Everything between the horizontal breaks was originally part of n.1 in that answer.

Note that the only immediate point of v.15-16 is that one land abhorred by Ahab that has two kings over it will cease to have kings by the time this child of Isa 7:14 is very old. Almost unanimously commentators will identify these two kings with Rezin and Pekah (Remaliah's son), identifying the single land as symbolically illustrating the united forces of two lands (quotes from commentaries found at the preceding link):

The "land" must certainly be that of the two confederate kings, Rezin and Pekah, the Syro-Ephraim-itic land, or Syria and Samaria (Pulpit Commentary)

The countries of Syria and Israel, which Ahaz abhorred for their cruel designs and practices against him (Benson Commentary)

Syria and Samaria regarded as one (2Ki 16:9; 15:30) (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)

Ephraim and Syria are treated as one territory, ruled by the two allied kings (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

But this is God's message, and though the sign is broadly to the house of David, the last part of v.16 relates it to Ahab with "The land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" (KJV). Most later translations have "dread" in place of the idea of abhor, as the word can have either idea (see BDB), and Ahaz's fear is known from v.4.

However, if one understands it as abhor (repugnance) rather than dread (fear), it can be argued that the reference God is making is to the literal singular land of the divided monarchy, that is, Israel and Judah. Ahaz has demonstrated to God his abhorrence for the land in his great wickedness (2 Kg 16:2-4; 2 Ch 28:1-4)—note the various immoral uses of the land in the references, and of course the actions themselves would lead to judgment upon the land. Ahaz's true abhorrence was for the land God had given.

Viewed so, the prophecy fits Christ exactly, for what it is saying is that Israel and Judah (the one divided land, that land abhorred by Ahaz) will both have ceased to have their kings during the early years of the child prophesied in Isa 7:14.

This is not true of Ahaz's day (Judah remained with a king). It is also not true of the time of the Babylonian captivity (no such child was born during that time). But it is true of Christ. A king (Jewish, but not Davidic) was reestablished during the time of the Maccabees in the Hasmonean dynasty:

From 110 BC, with the Seleucid empire disintegrating, the dynasty became fully independent, expanded into the neighbouring regions of Galilee, Iturea, Perea, Idumea and Samaria, and took the title "basileus" [king].

This dynasty was replaced by the Herodian dynasty, with the new king, Herod the Great:

The installation of Herod the Great (an Idumean) as king in 37 BC made Israel a Roman client state and marked the end of the Hasmonean dynasty.

He "was appointed 'King of the Jews' by the Roman Senate," but the more significant point is that:

When Herod died in 4 BCE, the kingdom was divided among his four sons into tetrarchies, the largest being the Tetrarchy of Judea.

The land of Israel was once again without a king, but this time during the youth of the one named Immanuel, Jesus Christ!—

Scholars generally accept a date of [Christ's] birth between 6 and 4 BC. It is generally agreed that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, placing the birth of Jesus before then.

Then v.17ff goes on to describe the process by which Israel and Judah will begin to lose power (and lose their kings), beginning with Israel (and even Judah is greatly affected by Assyria, so Isaiah 8:8).

Conclusion

Ahaz refused a sign, so he was not specifically given one, but the house of David more broadly was given a sign that God would be with them, the birth of a child named Immanuel under specific circumstances. That sign only and uniquely came to pass at the birth of Jesus Christ, per the statement of Matthew 1:22-23.

Community
  • 1
ScottS
  • 20,038
  • 4
  • 50
  • 101
  • I like this answer, can we chat a little about it? – diego b Jan 07 '18 at 01:53
  • @diegob I've created a chat room for the discussion – ScottS Jan 08 '18 at 18:07
  • @ScottS Hi, thank you very much for your answer! It is the most helpful for me to understand the prophetic verse Isaiah 7:14. It really matches the perspective of the Bible itself and it really makes sense except for one thing: In Mark 6:14 (And King Herod heard of him ... ), the KJV still refers to Herod, who is presumably Herod Antipas, as King. How could we interpret this in the perspective above? I'd really appreciate it if you'd answer it!! – withgrace1040 May 26 '21 at 08:40
  • 1
    @withgrace1040 First, even Herod the Great was "appointed" by Rome, and so really was a "puppet" king (a true king is the absolute sovereign of the land with no higher government authority over him); Herod Antipas was even less than that, ruling over only 1/4 of the land of his father (hence why he was a tetrarch, specifically of Galilee and Perea). Neither was a true king over the land, and neither an Israelite king (Herod the Great was Idumean[Edomite]/Arab; his son Antipas had a Samaritan mother, which at least had some Jewish blood mixed in). Cont.... – ScottS May 27 '21 at 20:44
  • 1
    Second, the Greek term translated "king" in English texts is used in other contexts to convey various ideas of an authority figure. Liddell and Scott mention uses related to various ideas: captain, judge, prince, lord, master, etc., so a word that can mean more generally a "ruler" (not necessarily a "king" in the sense we often think of it). So for Antipas, "King Herod" was likely an honorific title he was given (or more likely, pridefully took to himself), but did not contain the true idea of absolute sovereign over his area (Caesar was that, which of course the Jews emphasized in Jn 19:15). – ScottS May 27 '21 at 20:45
  • 1
    And Caesar was not really "king" of the land as God is noting in the prophecy. God is referring to the land being bereft of Jewish kings at the time that the KING is born. – ScottS May 27 '21 at 20:47
  • @ScottS Hi, thank you for getting back to me. It is really well understood by me. Actually, while I was waiting for your answer, I searched on the internet myself and I found in Wiki that "The three heirs of Herod therefore traveled to Rome to make their claims, Antipas arguing he ought to inherit the whole kingdom and the others maintaining that Herod's final will ought to be honored." So, I think he took the title of king to himself (maybe several years after his brother was abdicated) as you wrote in your answer. – withgrace1040 May 27 '21 at 20:57
  • @ScottS I am really glad that I've found an interpretation that respects biblical authority. I am wondering at which seminary you attended if you did. Today most seminaries are secularised and liberalized, I don't know which one to look at... :) – withgrace1040 May 27 '21 at 21:06
2

For other aspects of prophecy on this site see: Does Isaiah 7:14 indicate that the young woman is already pregnant?, and Does Isaiah 7:14 refer to a virgin?.

Those who disagree the prophecy is Messianic and fulfilled in the birth of Jesus as Matthew states, commonly see this as Christian eisegeses because the literal translation is non-Messianic:

Assuredly my Lord will give you a sign of his own accord! Look the young woman is with child and about to give to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. (JPS 1985)

The Hebrew הָֽעַלְמָה֙ literally is “the young woman,” not "virgin." In fact, בְּתוּלָה is virgin. Yet a young woman giving birth to a son is a common occurrence, not a sign. Adding to this is the use of “Lord,” Adonai not LORD, YHVH. So a Lord saying a young woman with child will give birth to a son is hardly prophecy or a sign.

The first use of הָֽעַלְמָה֙ as “young woman” is helpful in understanding Isaiah:

As I stand by the spring of water, let the young woman (הָֽעַלְמָה֙) who comes out to draw and to whom I say, “Please, let me drink a little water from your jar.” And who answers, “You may drink, and I will also draw for your camels” – let her be the wife whom the LORD has decreed for my master’s son. (Genesis 24:43-44 JPS 1985)

When seeking a wife for Isaac, Abraham’s servant describes Rebekah as a הָֽעַלְמָה֙. She is a young woman who is a virgin (Genesis 24:16). If Isaiah had been written as Matthew, it would be "Assuredly my Lord will give you a sign of his own accord! Look the virgin is with child and about to give to a son. Let her name him Immanuel." Since "virgin" by itself says nothing about a woman's age, the prophecy no longer identifies her as a young woman.

The prophecy states the time by which it will be fulfilled:

For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. (Isaiah 7:16 ESV)

Commentators like Barnes discuss why Isaiah 7:14 refers to two events, one soon to occur (fulfilled as stated in 7:16) and another which refers to the Messiah. However, this Messianic aspect of the prophecy is not origin to Matthew:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son and you shall name him Emmanouel. (LXX NETS)

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ

Greek, like Hebrew and English, has a specific word for virgin: παρθένος and the LXX translator(s) rendered the Hebrew הָֽעַלְמָה֙ as a παρθένος, virgin, long before Matthew.

Jewish scholars who translated Isaiah into Greek understood the meaning as ἡ παρθένος, literally “the virgin”. So Matthew’s reading of Isaiah follows that of the Jewish scholars who translated the passage well before the birth of Jesus. The difference is Matthew sees its fulfillment when the virgin Mary conceives and gives birth to Jesus.

Community
  • 1
Revelation Lad
  • 16,645
  • 7
  • 46
  • 104
  • "Jewish scholars who translated Isaiah into Greek understood the meaning as ἡ παρθένος, literally “the virgin”"

    What's the source that the translator of Isaiah 7 was a Jewish scholar?

     – Avi Avraham Mar 12 '24 at 14:42
  • @AviAvraham Is the objection to the term Jewish instead of Hebrew? There is no doubt the LXX was the product of Judaism. The folklore of miraculous translations by 6 from each tribe; the widespread use of the LXX in the Diaspora is a priori evidence. Excepting the use by Christians, the LXX was arguably the greatest evangelical tool in the history of Judaism. Prior to its abandonment because of Christian use it brought the word of God and a correct understanding of God to an otherwise pagan world, something which would never would have happened from the Hebrew text. – Revelation Lad Mar 14 '24 at 17:56
  • The Letter to Aristeas specifically states the translation of the 70/72 was only the pentateuch. There were certainly other collections of Hellenic-Jewish books including translations of the hebrew bible in antiquity, but they are almost all lost to history.

    The main issue is the assumption in your conclusion that the fact that Jewish translators chose parthenos makes it a correct translation - that just doesn't follow. There are numerous mistakes in the LXX we have today, it'd be amusing to start a religion based on those 1st century mistakes

     – Avi Avraham Mar 14 '24 at 20:12
  • @AviAvraham Philo of Alexandria used it. It was read in every Greek speaking synagogue in the Roman Empire. It resulted in the conversion of thousands from pagan beliefs to Judaism. The only reason it fell out if favor is Christian use. Were there "mistakes" sure. Were there many more Biblical truths? Yes. I say "mistakes" because the original Hebrew was open to more than one meaning. Case in point is explaining almah to a Greek. – Revelation Lad Mar 14 '24 at 23:00
  • "because the original Hebrew was open to more than one meaning" - I'm not sure what that means. The meaning of עלמה is quite clear and unambiguous. The male version עלם is found elsewhere in the Hebrew and is universally translated into English as "lad". The meaning of the shoresh is also unequivocally clear to have no relation to 'virginity', it means "youth, endurance" – Avi Avraham Mar 15 '24 at 21:41
2

Vs 3 - Notice first that the prophet is specifically told to take along with him his little son Shear-Jashub. Although the boy does nothing and says nothing, his very presence is required to make this prophecy meaningful, as we will see. The boy's name (which means, "A remnant shall return"), is the significant element that the prophet is to bring before the king. There has to be a reason for Isaiah’s son to be there. The reason for taking his son is not explained until verses 15-16. In studying the Hebrew Scriptures it is important to note the meaning of people's names as brought out in Isa 8:18 that Isaiah & both sons are signs to Israel.

Secondly the Hebrew word "almah" means a young woman of marriageable age and the seven times it is used in the Hebrew Scriptures the context(s) shows the young girl to be a virgin. The LXX correctly use the word "parthenos" which strictly means a virgin as well as Matthew. Isaiah could have used the word "betulah" but it is always accompanied by a explanatory statement when speaking of a virgin "never knew a man sexually" as in Genesis 24:16 -And the damsel (Na'a 'rah) was very fair to look upon, a virgin (betulah), neither had any man known her. Gen 24:43 uses the word "almah" and requires no additional qualifying remarks since the one word alone is sufficient to mean' virgin.' Also the Hebrew text reads "the" virgin and not "a" virgin and since there is no woman mentioned in the immediate context Hebrew grammar rules requires one the second rule is the 'principle of previous reference ‘from much earlier which has been dealt with earlier and is common knowledge among people. The only possible reference is to Genesis 3:15. Contrary to the norm, the Messiah would be reckoned after the seed of the woman. Why? Because he would have no human father; his would be a virgin birth.

I agree that the birth of the Messiah some 700 years future would not be a sign Ahaz but to the House of David. Chapter 8:3 Maher-shalal-hash-baz is very questionable as a fulfillment of the sign promised in Chapter 7 since the prophet's wife conceived after having sex with Isaiah.

There is however a second sign, in verses 15-16, and this time it is specifically for Ahaz. The 'you' in verse 16 is again singular, meaning Ahaz. Before Isaiah's son, Shear-Jashub, is old enough to make moral distinctions between right and wrong, the kings of Israel and Syria will be deposed and their threat removed. This was fulfilled within three years. "The boy in verse 16 uses a Hebrew word meaning a child at least one year old. A definite article "the" is used and this cannot be the son of verse 14 but refers back to Isaiah's son in verse 3. Why else was Isaiah commanded to take him?

Mike B
  • 21
  • 1
2

Many elaborate ways have been put forth to make Isa 7:14 fit the bill of a virgin birth prophecy for Jesus. But this claim in Matthew should be seen in context: the author had a penchant for searching the Hebrew scriptures for any and all phrases that could possibly be applied to Jesus, whether they were prophecies or not. He pulled passages out of context, and often twisted meanings to make cases for "fulfillments". Some examples..

He quotes, "Out of Egypt I have called my son" (Matt 2:15), but Hosea 11:1 simply refers to the Hebrew people. It was not meant as a prophecy at all.

"Rachel weeping for her children" is quoted in connection with the supposed slaughter by Herod. But again, this is not a prophecy. In Jer 31:15, Rachel is the mother of children who were taken captive, and in the very next verse it speaks of them returning again.

Matthew 2:23: "And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" But there is no reference at all in the Hebrew scriptures to Nazareth, or to Nazarenes. Some scholars think Matthew has misread Judges 13:5: "for lo, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from birth ...". But being a Nazirite has nothing to do with being from Nazareth; a Nazirite was one who took a vow of abstinence for special service. If Matthew was thinking of this verse, it would fit his pattern of misunderstandings very well.

(By the way, Matthew implies that the move to Nazareth was new, due to Joseph being afraid to return to Judea. But Luke's story has them as residents of Nazareth all along!)

The above is all within the Matthew birth narrative. Here is one more from Jesus' ministry, Matt 13:35: "This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet: 'I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.'" This is a distortion of the meaning of Psalm 78:2-3: "I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old, things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us." Again, no prophecy intended... this is simply the Psalmist announcing that he will tell an old story. Not something "hidden since the foundation of the world", but things "heard and known". The Psalm describes a summary of the Exodus.

An author's patterns are worth noting...

Teamonger
  • 85
  • 4
1

almah means virgin. The root of the word means "unknown", which is the Biblical way of saying sexual innocence. It means an innocent young woman. The Hebrew word bethulah, usually translated as virgin, does not mean the same as our English word virgin. Bethulah means a chaste woman who was a virgin before marriage and was faithful to one husband after marriage. It is an honorable term. It is used to refer to a married woman in Joel 1:8; Es 2:17,19; Deu 22:19. If Isa 7:14 had said bethulah instead of almah, it would mean a normal, proper birth.

How could the virgin birth be a sign to Ahaz? It wasn't. The virgin birth is the reason that God will rescue Judah. Because the virgin must give birth to Immanuel, who is God with us, therefore God needs to preserve Judah and the Davidic kingship.

The sign to Ahaz is in the next verse: The people will eat yogurt and honey. This is further explained in vv 21-22.

  1. There is not a single scholarly source that translates almah as virgin

    n.f. young woman—pl. עֲלָמוֹת—1. young woman, girl, perh. specif. uninitiated, unknowing female,* David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press; Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2011), 428.

    Ernest Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for English Readers" gives the meaning as "maiden", which means a girl that has never been married.

  2. The shoresh of almah is עלם which means youth, vigor, and persistence.
    Can you give me an example in the Bible where almah or some derivative word means what you say? Examples of the root word alam meaning hidden are Ps 90:8; Lev 4:13; 5:2-4; Num 5:13; etc.

  3. The sign is not the virgin conceiving, it’s the birth of the child that precedes the victory of Judah in the Syro-Ephraimite War
    Yes, the sign is not conceiving. Neither is it the birth of a child. That is no sign. There is nothing miraculous about that. The sign is the miracle that all the people will eat butter and honey.

agarza
  • 4,297
  • 6
  • 15
  • 32
Steve Miller
  • 582
  • 2
  • 11
  • There is not a single scholarly source that translates almah as virgin
  • The shoresh of almah is עלם which means youth, vigor, persistence. It’s the same shoresh as ‘Olam which commonly means eternity.
  • The sign is not the virgin conceiving, it’s the birth of the child which precedes the victory of Judah in the Syro-Ephraimite War
    • – Avi Avraham Mar 06 '24 at 04:07
  • @SteveMiller You seem to have two Stack Exchange accounts (your edit was on a new account). Please merge them so you can continue to post under one account. – agarza Mar 08 '24 at 04:11