Smoodock's Blog

It has been claimed by some that Matthew’s reference to Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 is out of context, that Isaiah’s sign to appear centuries later would mean nothing to King Ahaz during his then present trouble. The kings of Syria and Samaria were allied and had plotted to destroy the Judean monarchy and set up a puppet government friendly to their own interests (2Kings 16:5). But, is this conclusion correct, namely, if a virgin didn’t conceive in the days of Ahaz, how can Matthew’s reference to Isaiah be correct for Jesus?

Matthew 1:23 KJV  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.

Isaiah 7:14 KJV  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

It is believed by some that:

a)      the virgin (H5959) is most likely already with child and about to birth;

b)      nothing in the Scripture indicates anything other than a regular baby would be burn, i.e. there is nothing to say the child would be God;

c)      this child would be born in King Ahaz’s time; he would lay eyes on him, because the sign is the age of the child when ‘x’ happens to the king’s enemies.

Concerning the Hebrew almah (H5959), I have already discussed this point in a previous study:  Jesus ~ Born of a Virgin or a Young Girl. As far as Isaiah 7:14 referring to God is concerned, if a virgin were to conceive without the aid of intercourse with a man, would the offspring be a ‘regular baby’? Let’s be real! This miracle baby could not be just an ordinary ‘Joe’. As far as it referring to God is concerned, this is not noted here, but it is so noted later in the prophecy (Isaiah 9:6).

It is true that ‘a’ child would be born in the days of King Ahaz, and he would indeed see the child and recognize that before the child was old enough to reason, the king’s political troubles would be over (Isaiah 7:16). So, who is this child, for it certainly cannot be Jesus?

Basically, there are three arguments concerning to whom Isaiah refers in his prophecy when he calls him Immanuel. First, some interpret this Scripture to mean that the child is Shear-jashub, Isaiah’s son, whom the Lord had told Isaiah to bring with him when he visited the King (Isaiah 7:3). Secondly, some point to Hezekiah, Ahaz’s son, as the child God used to be the sign. However, neither of these two children could be the one God intended to be a sign to Ahaz, because the prophecy states the virgin “shall conceive,” indicating the child is not yet born. Moreover, Hezekiah was eleven years old at the time of the prophecy and had already reached the age of reason.

Finally, others who reject Jesus will point to Mahershalalhashbaz, Isaiah’s yet unborn son, whom he fathered by the prophetess (Isaiah 8:1-4). While this probably is the near sign to Ahaz that his political troubles would be over, it cannot be the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 for two reasons.

First, whenever the sign would appear, near or far, it would appear after Ahaz’s political troubles were over. All Ahaz saw in the child’s life was that God had spoken through the prophet, and this was after the fact. Therefore, the argument that a virgin birth centuries later could not be the ‘sign’ is moot. The sign comes after the fact whether near or far. The fact is the defeat of Ahaz’s enemies before Mahershalalhashbaz had reached the age of reason was more a sign that a virgin birth would indeed occur sometime later, than the age of the boy was that Ahaz’s enemies would be defeated.

Secondly, Mahershalalhashbaz could not be the primary sign, because Isaiah 8:8 shows that the king of Assyria comes into Immanuel’s land. That is, Immanuel is Lord or King of the land of the Jews. None of Isaiah’s son’s were ever king. God, himself is King of the land and is represented in the persons of the kings of Judah and Israel, thus, implying that Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 is God.

While it is true Isaiah never had a child by the name of Emmanuel, neither is it true that Jesus was “named” Emmanuel, and this is the point that Matthew is making. Matthew 1:23 must have some other significance than giving Jesus a “name” which He never used in public. The name Emmanuel means “the God with us” (the article is present in the Greek). This is speaking of the presence of God among men. Jesus, being God (John1:1), became flesh (John 1:14) and dwelt among men. It has even a greater significance for us today in that Matthew 28:20 has Jesus promising us (all of us) that He would be (present) with us until the end. This suggests omnipresence! What we have here is a declaration of deity upon the child before he was born.

Certainly, Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled in Matthew 1:23, however, Jesus was never publicly referred to as Emmanuel, and the Jews as a nation never believed in the Virgin Birth. The angel said he would be called Emmanuel. Where is this done? Nowhere in Scripture! The only conclusion I can draw is that Jesus fulfills the meaning of the name i.e. “THE GOD WITH US.” Billions of people throughout the last 2000 years have believed in and claimed that Jesus is God, and he was and is with us (Matthew 28:20).