THE IDENTITY OF IMMANUEL

THE IDENTITY OF IMMANUEL: WHO IS THE MESSIAH?

By: Daniel McMillin

IS JESUS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?

The answer is yes! In fact, all of the Old Testament finds its “Yes!” in Jesus. “Christ stands as both the climax and center of God’s saving purposes,” as Jason DeRouchie says, “Jesus operates as the culmination of salvation history and provides both the beginning and end of Old Testament interpretation.” Further, “the whole Bible progresses, integrates, and climaxes in Christ, and Scripture discloses a God-intentioned unity in how the unchanging Lord is working out his purpose of exalting himself through Jesus.”[1]  The Old Testament anticipates the arrival of the promised Messiah, and the New Testament demonstrates that Jesus’ fulfillment as the Messiah revolutionizes our reading of the Old Testament.[2] One of the central themes throughout Scripture, in both the Old and New Testaments, is God’s presence among His people. Ultimately, this is fulfilled by Jesus in the incarnation as “Immanuel.” Jesus acts as the recapitulation of history where All things from the past, present, and future direct our attention to the saving activity and divine presence through Immanuel.[3]

THE JOURNEY TO DISCOVER IMMANUEL

Isaiah 7:14 is one of the most heavily debated texts in Scripture, and it is subject to a wide variety of interpretations. This text is not as simple as we would like it to be as readers; it is possibly not as “plainly laid out” as we (or at least I) once assumed. However, while it may be more challenging, it does not mean its meaning or application is altered or inaccessible. It is kind of like bowling as a child and having the rails up and then finally getting old enough for the rails to go down; it is certainly more challenging. However, the rules are still the same. There are still ten pins, the bowling ball is still round, and the goal is to have the most points. We can still knock the pins down, but it is just more of a challenge than it once was when we were children. Likewise, when we read Isaiah in light of Matthew 1:23, and see how Matthew reads the prophet and says, “It’s Jesus.” At first glance, the answer seems to be solved.[4] But when we take a closer looker and just read Isaiah in his original context, the rials are down, and it’s more challenging. Many questions begin to arise: How does this apply to Jesus? Is Matthew reading Isaiah properly? How is this a sign to Ahaz? Who really is Immanuel?

We will investigate each of these questions as they aid in our journey to discovering the identity of Immanuel. While most interpreters would appeal to Matthew and assume that the debate is over concerning the identity of Immanuel since the New Testament affirms, “This is Jesus.” While I do believe this is a valid approach to answering this question, that is, since an inspired author identifies Immanuel as Jesus, I believe it is more appropriate to read the source that Matthew is citing and understand what He is reading and then understand how He is applying His source. And so, before moving to the New Testament and arguing that the identity of the Messiah is Jesus, we will begin with Isaiah’s writings within its own context and then move to the New Testament and see how they inform our understanding of the identity of Immanuel.[5]

CANDIDATES FOR IMMANUEL

McConville observes that “the verse is impossible, ultimately, to disentangle from its later interpretation, especially in Matt. 1:23, but it is important to read it initially in its OT context. The sign consists in the birth and naming of a child and the relation of this to the failure of the alliance’s threat to Jerusalem.”[6] We will attempt not to jump to the New Testament to find the answer and neglect Isaiah’s presentation of Immanuel as we have it. There are four major interpretations that are offered for the identity of Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 and six major candidates offered.

(1) An unidentified child born from the house of David
(2) King Hezekiah
(3) Maher-shalal-hash-baz
(4) An anonymous prophet
(5) A collective remnant in Israel
(6) Jesus

(1) An exclusively Old Testament interpretation.[7] 
(2) An exclusively Messianic interpretation where Jesus is the only candidate that fulfills this role.[8] 
(3) A dual prophecy fulfilled by a figure who lived during Isaiah’s time and the future Messiah.[9]
(4) A typological fulfillment is fulfilled by a figure who lived during Isaiah’s time and acts as a type of Christ who is the ultimate fulfillment of Immanuel.[10]

A “SIGN” FROM THE LORD: “IMMANUEL” (ISAIAH 7:14)

The prophet writes, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel” (Is. 7:14, NRSV). In Isaiah, Immanuel is viewed as a “sign” of divine judgment over Ahaz as well as a deliverance of Israel.[11] At this point, the sign will be something that reveals how God will be with His people. God’s presence will be experienced within Isaiah’s timeframe. Verses 15-17 illustrate that the sign must be fulfilled within the near future since the two kings and two nations will become desolate “before the child knows how to reject evil and choose what is right.” As Watts notes, “the context requires a sign that will be fulfilled in the immediate future.”[12] McConville notes that “the combination of ‘Now hear!...is pregnant…is giving birth’ dramatically pictures an imminent event.”[13] The woman that is being referenced may be present or is known by Ahaz and Isaiah and either is pregnant or will be pregnant soon.[14] While Isaiah 7:14 does not appear to be messianic, it should be viewed within the immediate context of Isaiah 7-9 (see especially 9:6), which forces us to read this as a unit of the broader messianic prophecy.[15] In addition, the theme throughout chapters 1-12 is centered on God with us.

Why is the sign of Immanuel relevant to us as readers? How does it fit in the broader context of Isaiah’s message and Israel’s history? How does this fit within the Davidic dynasty? In verses 1-13, Isaiah is comforting Ahaz and the house of David by providing them a sign that provides them hope for Israel’s future and the line of David’s security.  The house of David is in danger from the Syrian and Ephraim threat. Ahaz is worried about the line of David. If Isaiah’s prophecy is true, then what assurance is there that the promise of God will be kept, and the line of David will not end with him? The Lord sent Isaiah to deliver a message that would alleviate his fears and reassure him that God always keeps His word and will ensure that David’s line will remain intact. “Immanuel was a guarantee of the nation’s future greatness in fulfillment of God’s covenantal promises.”[16] God sending Isaiah grants him the authority “to offer Ahaz a sign (אות) to bolster his faith and direct his decision.”[17] This sign is meant to draw Ahaz towards God so he may trust in or rely upon the Lord. However, his story ultimately leads to unfaithfulness. Instead of trusting God, Ahaz desperately wants to take things into his own hands and impatiently acts without God. In 2 Chronicles 28:22, we read, “At the time of his distress, King Ahaz himself became more unfaithful to the LORD.”

IMMANUEL’S ALMAH: THE VIRGIN MAIDEN

So often, this text has been called “the prophecy of the virgin birth,” but it is best seen as “the prophecy of Immanuel.” In Isaiah 7:14, the sign is Immanuel, and so the emphasis is on the child, not the woman. While the woman’s identity is important to consider, our focus should be on the child because it is through this child that God is with us. Nevertheless, there is still much discussion surrounding the almah (“young woman”) in reference that needs to be addressed.

When comparing Isaiah 7:14 with Matthew 1:23 in most modern translations, one may notice a difference between the words “woman” (almah, עלמה) and “virgin” (arthenos, παρθένος). A lot of ink has been spilled concerning the translation of the word almah in Isaiah.[18] While there is much controversy that surrounds this word today, it would not be lost on Isaiah’s audience.[19] According to Isaiah, Immanuel will be born of a virgin maiden. The word “virgin” (almah) is heavily debated in scholarship concerning the translation of this word. In modern and biblical Hebrew, the term almah is unclear without the immediate context. This term is a more generic term that is used to refer to virgins.  The word may include the woman’s virginity but does not exclude other translations. The term can mean virgin but doesn’t demand the woman’s virginity. The word is very broad in scope and can only be narrowed down by the context.

Significantly, Isaiah does not use the words naara (“young woman”) or batula (“virgin”),[20] which may specifically refer to one’s sexual status, but instead, Isaiah uses an unusual or ambiguous term to describe the woman. Oswalt suggests that Isaiah uses the more ambiguous word “precisely because the significance of this sign that God was with his people would not be exhausted in the deliverance from Syria and Israel that Isaiah was predicting. In the future, Immanuel would be truly present with his people in their human flesh as a result of a virgin birth.”[21] The Septuagint (LXX)[22] translates this word arthenos (“virgin”)[23] rather than using a less ambiguous word for “young woman.” This suggests that the Jewish interpreters who translated Isaiah 7 from Hebrew to Greek believed that the word Isaiah used could be less ambiguous and mean “virgin.”[24] If that is the case, then Matthew, who used the Septuagint translation of Isaiah, would not be misusing or distorting the Old Testament but would align himself with the prophet Isaiah.[25] Blomberg notes that “this would suggest that already before the NT [New Testament] age at least some Jews had come to link the passages in Isa. 7-9 together and to deduce that there would be an additional, longer-term fulfillment of the birth of a messianic king, portended by more supernatural conception.”[26]

Why does it not explicitly say “virgin”? Oswalt proposes the ambiguity of the word almah may be an intention. He says the following: “In its first significance the virginity of the mother at the time of the announcement of the sign is all that is being intended. Thus, the typical word for ‘virgin’ (btulah) is not used; it would have called too much attention to itself. Yet for the real significance of the sign to be realized, the virginity of the mother at the time of the birth is critical. Thus, the common words for ‘woman’ or ‘girl’ cannot be used. The fact that almah has the definite article suggests that Isaiah is identifying a particular woman.”[27] With the exception of Song of Solomon 6:8, the six Old Testament uses of the term almah do not indicate the sexual status of the “woman” in the respected contexts (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:26; Prov. 30:19; Song. 1:3). In each of these passages, Watts suggests, “the common meaning of עלמה is a young woman who is sexually mature.”[28]

DUAL FULFILLMENT: MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ AND JESUS

How is Isaiah 7:14 fulfilled in Matthew 1:23? There is a medium between an exclusively Old Testament or New Testament fulfillment. That is, this text does not only mean something in Isaiah to the point that it means nothing to Matthew, nor does it mean something to Matthew alone and nothing to Isaiah. Rather, this text is fulfilled during Isaiah’s day and is ultimately fulfilled by Jesus in Matthew’s day.[29] As Craig Blomberg wrote, “it is best to see a partial, proleptic fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in his time, with the complete and more glorious fulfillment in Jesus’ own birth.”[30] Matthew’s narrative fulfills (fills meaning of) the events that transpire in Isaiah. As such, the Immanuel of Isaiah (Maher-shalal-hash-baz) foreshadows the true Immanuel of Matthew’s Gospel (Jesus). In Matthew’s Gospel, this true Immanuel is, of course, Jesus of Nazareth. In Isaiah’s context, I believe one can make the case for either King Hezekiah,[31]Ahaz’s son, or Maher-shalal-hash-baz,[32] Isaiah’s son. I do not find the arguments for an unidentified child born from the house of David, an anonymous prophet, or a collective remnant in Israel to be very convincing candidates for the role of Immanuel which leaves us with these two final candidates. It seems more likely that it is Maher-shalal-has-baz since he is referenced in Isaiah 8:1-5. Additionally, there are some issues with the chronology of King Hezekiah, since he was born approximately five years before these events transpired.

In Matthew 1:22, Matthew suggests that the birth of Jesus “took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet” before quoting Isaiah in verse 23. Matthew sees the birth of Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of the virgin birth prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.[33] As Chisholm has noted, “Jesus the Messiah is the fulfillment of the Davidic ideal prophesied by Isaiah, the one whom Immanuel foreshadowed.”[34] Blomberg suggests that Matthew is leaning in on the double fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.

“Matthew recognized that Isaiah’s son fulfilled the dimension of the prophecy that required a child to be born in the immediate future. But the larger, eschatological context, especially of Isa. 9:1-7, depicted a son, never clearly distinguished from Isaiah’s, who would be a divine, messianic king. That dimension was fulfilled in Jesus (similarly, Schibler 1995:103-4), who was unequivocally born to a young woman of marriageable age, but to a woman who also was a virgin at the time of the conception.”[35]

There has been some pushback against a dual fulfillment view presented by some of our brethren in the past for an exclusively messianic interpretation. For example, one brother suggested that to “deny Isaiah 7:14 as a predictive prophecy about the virgin birth and Matthew 1:22, 23 as its minute fulfillment and one has robbed the Bible of a crystal clear virgin-birth prophecy and virgin-birth fulfillment…make it dual or double in scope and fulfillment, and Christ is robbed of the uniqueness of its one-time occurrence.”[36] I do agree that if this text is not considered a prophecy and is not connected to Matthew, then it is, indeed, problematic. However, I disagree with the conclusion that, somehow, dual prophecy minimizes the authenticity and distinctive tone of Isaiah’s prophecy. How is the prophecy minimized if it is a dual prophecy? It does not seem apparent to me that this is appropriate, especially when there are plenty of other examples throughout Scripture that apply to someone in the near future to a figure under the First Covenant and in the distant future to Christ, the figure who introduces the New Covenant.

NEW TESTAMENT USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: SEEING CHRIST IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES

It is accepted that the New Testament records the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, the prediction of the virgin birth. The question then is how does Matthew 1:23 use Isaiah 7:14? Does Matthew abuse or misuse this text by assuming this relates to the Messiah, or does he understand how this properly applies to Jesus of Nazareth and the virgin birth? I believe that Matthew read Isaiah and saw Jesus.

Donald Hagner notes that “Matthew contains well over sixty explicit quotations from the OT (not counting a great number of allusions), more than twice as many as any other Gospel, reflecting Matthew’s interest in the gospel as the fulfillment of the OT expectation.”[37] Matthew’s Gospel contains sixteen “fulfillment” (πληρόω) statements that tie the life of Christ with the Scriptures. “The point is that Matthew keeps his audience focused on Israel’s Scriptures and how Jesus, at every point in his ministry, fulfills every word.”[38] 

So why does Matthew cite Isaiah 7:14 specifically? Matthew is not sitting around thinking about what to write and then decides one day, “I’ll write about Jesus,” and then ponders how to begin his gospel and decides to write this long list of names as the lineage of Jesus and then tries to spice things up by talking about (or making up as liberals would suppose) the virgin birth and then scavenging through the Scriptures to find some prooftexts to support his points. Pay attention to the context. The surrounding narrative is about the scandal of Mary’s pregnancy, but the point in Isaiah and Matthew is not about the virginity of the mother but is focused on the child whose name is Immanuel. Matthew adds commentary on the name, which shows us why he is citing this passage. Who else could be named Immanuel appropriately? Who could truly be God with us? Ultimately, this passage is fulfilled by what is called the “incarnation,” where God became man. “Matthew confirms that we should interpret the conception and birth of Christ in terms of God himself coming in the flesh to be with his people through their deliverance.”[39]

The statement “to fulfill” here “expresses the purpose for which the events occurred and implies that God orchestrated events in order to effect what he promised through the prophet. Thus, the accuracy of biblical prophecy is not merely the result of God’s ability to see the future; it results from God actively directing history in order to fulfill his purposes and promises.”[40] Matthew 1:23 affirms that Jesus fulfills Isaiah 7:14, which entails the virgin birth and identity of the Immanuel child. [41]  Some may object to interpreting Isaiah this way and claim that Matthew is abusing Isaiah because he may not have thought it was about the promised Davidic king. However, Isaiah does not have to anticipate messianic fulfillment for this to be genuinely interpreted as a messianic text, nor does it have to be viewed as such in the messianic tradition (just like Isaiah 53). Instead, as we see here, the Holy Spirit fills the meaning of this text with the true Immanuel, Jesus of Nazareth. As Donald Hagner states, “This was the ultimate sense in which God’s presence was to be manifested in Israel. The promised son of Isa 7:14 thus became readily identifiable as that son of David who would bring the expected kingdom of security, righteousness, and justice.”[42]

There is also another element to Matthew’s use of “fulfillment” in his Gospel. James M. Hamilton Jr. suggests that Matthew’s use of the Old Testament in chapters 1-2 is to be viewed as a typological fulfillment in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Matt. 1:22-23), Hosea 11:1 (cf. Matt. 2:15), Jeremiah 31:15 (cf. Matt. 2:17-18), and an unidentified text possibly [Isaiah 11:1] (cf. Matt. 2:23). If this is the case then Matthew is “claiming that these events that happen to the messiah fulfill the pattern of events seen in the Old Testament texts he cites.” (see the charts below) [43]

“As epitomized in Isaiah 7:14,” Daniel Treier writes, “the Old Testament anticipated the first advent of Jesus Christ as Immanuel, God with us, incarnate in a fully human life. This incarnate state began with the Holy Spirit overshadowing Jesus’s virginal conception in Mary. Returning God’s redemptive presence to the covenant people, the eternal Son thus assumed a fully human nature and identified impeccably with humanity’s fallen history.”[44] Unknowingly, the prophet Isaiah sees a glimpse of the Messiah in view of the virgin birth. Later, the evangelist Matthew views this text as a prophecy that is fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth, who was born of a virgin.

THE MEANING OF IMMANUEL: GOD IS WITH US

As we see in both Isaiah and Matthew, the sign child will be named עמנו אל Immanuel, meaning God-(is)-with-us. Immanuel is to be viewed as a reminder of God’s presence— “God with us” (Is. 7:14; 8:8; 10)—and the fulfillment of God’s promises. As Jack P. Lewis said, “The name Immanuel is given the child to symbolize the help the Lord gave in giving the deliverance.”[45] How does this understood in Isaiah’s day? How is this good news to King Ahaz? This child signifies that God has not abandoned the house of David. When this child is at the age when he knows right from wrong, the war will finally come to an end. Throughout the disarray and destruction under these two kings, God will be present as He has demonstrated by sending this child as a constant reassurance to them that God is always there. The beauty of Immanuel’s entrance is that “God has come to take up residence with us as one of us.”[46] We no longer need a temple or tabernacle when we have the God-man who dwells among us (Is. 60:18-20; Ez. 48:35; Rev. 21:23).

Why is Jesus not called “Immanuel” by His family, friends, or followers? In ancient Near Eastern and Hebrew cultures, names have meanings that reveal nature. Eric Lyons says, “By nature, the son of Mary was ‘Immanuel’ (John 1:1-3; 10:30, 33; 20:28), but by name, He was ‘Jesus.’”[47] Similarly, Hagner notes “this is not a personal name but rather a name that is descriptive of the task this person will perform.”[48] As far as our information goes, nobody ever called Jesus “Emmanuel”; it was not the child’s name in the same sense as “Jesus” was. Matthew surely intends his readers to understand that “Emmanuel” was his name in the sense that all that was involved in that name found its fulfilment in him.[49] Osborne notes four ways that God is present with us through Jesus:[50]

(1) God is present via his “Shekinah,” or dwelling via the pillar of fire and cloud in the exodus and his throne at the midpoint where the wings of the seraphim meet above the ark, i.e., in the Most Holy Place throughout the OT.
(2) God is present via his Son, who was in a sense a walking Most Holy Place during his life on this earth.
(3) God is present via the Holy Spirit during the church age.
(4) God is present physically and in full reality throughout eternity (Rev 21:1–22:5).

If Jesus is not called “Immanuel,” why does Matthew include this in his Gospel? What are the implications of Jesus being “Immanuel”? God’s presence is a theme used all throughout Matthew’s Gospel. The life and ministry of Jesus is seen as the incarnation because God literally dwelt among us, and we beheld His divine presence. As Charles L. Quarles suggests, “Matthew has structured his Gospel to highlight the importance of this name.”[51] Notably, the Messiah is introduced as “God with us” through His name “Immanuel” in Matthew 1:23. Then, in Matthew 18:20, he promises that “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” Finally, the Gospel closes with the promise that “I am with you” in Matthew 28:20.[52] Notice the implications of Matthew’s presentation of Immanuel. God is with us in the form of a baby born from a virgin; God is with us through Jesus of Nazareth as He heals and ministers throughout all of Galilee and Judea; and God is with us even after Christ dies on the cross, has risen from the dead, and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the throne with the Father. That is how powerful the promise of Immanuel is to us as disciples of Christ: Jesus keeps His promise and still fulfills the role of Immanuel as the Risen Lord. What a blessing it is to know that our God is with us!

END NOTES

[1] Jason S. DeRouchie, “Redemptive-Historical, Christocentric Approach,” in Five Views of Christ in the Old Testament. Ed. Brian J. Tabb and Andrew M. King (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 182-183, 186. See also Delighting in the Old Testament through Christ and for Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024).

[2] Andrew T. Abernethy and Gregory Goswell, God’s Messiah in the Old Testament: Expectations of Coming King (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2020); R.T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1992); Christopher J.H. Wright, Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014).

[3] Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1872).

[4] There is a danger in citing a verse without knowing its context. We often proof text and misapply verses to make them fit in a manner they were not meant to. We may mistakenly look at Matthew and think it’s a proof text, but he cited it with the understanding of the full context. Matthew doesn’t retell the context but rightly applies and assumes the context.

[5] See J. A. Motyer, “Content and Context in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.” TynBul 21 (1970): 118–25; H. L. Creager, “Immanuel Passage as Messianic Prophecy.” LQ 7 (1955): 339–343; G. Rice, “The Interpretation of Isaiah 7:15–17.” JBL 96 (1977): 363–369; J. T. Willis, “The Meaning of Isaiah 7:14 and Its Application in Matthew 1:23.” ResQ 21 (1978): 1–18.

[6] J. Gordon McConville, Isaiah, BCOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023), 123.

[7] David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981), 79–80; Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 147–149.

[8] Tertullian, Against Marcion; J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1993), 84-86; E.J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-18, Vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965), 288-294; E. J. Young, “The Immanuel Prophecy: Isa 7:14” in Studies in Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954), 143–198. The problem with this interpretation is that Isaiah 7:14 applies to someone during Isaiah’s day (see 7:15-16).

[9] This will be the position that I will develop later in the paper.

[10] Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 34; James M. Hamilton Jr., “The Virgin Will Conceive: Typological Fulfillment in Matthew 1:18-23” in Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Ed. John Nolland and Daniel Gurtner (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2008), 228-247.

[11] H. L. Ginsberg, “Immanuel (Is. 7:14).” EncJud. 8:1293–1295; N. K. Gottwald, “Immanuel as the Prophet’s Son.” VT 8 (1958): 36–47; E. Hammershaimb, “The Immanuel Sign.” ST 3 (1949): 124–142; E. E. Hindson, “Isaiah’s Immanuel.” Grace Journal 10.3 (1969): 3–15; B. E. Jones, “Immanuel: A Historical and Critical Study.” Diss., University of Wales, Aberystwyth, 1966–1967; C. Lattey, “The Emmanuel Prophecy: Is. 7:14.” CBQ 8 (1946): 369–76; “Various Interpretations of Isaiah 7:14.” CBQ 9 (1947): 147–154; F. L. Moriarty, “The Immanuel Prophecies.” CBQ 19 (1957): 226–233; J. H. Oswalt, “The Significance of the ˓Almah Prophecy in the Context of Isaiah 7–12.” CTR 6 (1993) 223–235; C. P. Price, “Immanuel: God with Us (Is. 7:14).” Christianity and Crisis 23 (1963): 222–223; J. M. Reese, “The Gifts of Immanuel.” TBT 27 (1966): 1880–1885; A. Schoors, “The Immanuel of Isaiah 7, 14.” OLP 18 (1987): 67–77; F. Zimmermann, “Immanuel Prophecy.” JQR 52 (1961) 154–159.

[12] John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, WBC (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2005), I:136.

[13] McConville, Isaiah, 124.

[14] Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 32; McConville, Isaiah, 123. Much of this discussion is based on the definite article “a” or “the.”

[15] D.A. Carson, “Matthew” in Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol.2: New Testament. Ed.  Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 10-11. “Apparently, there is no evidence that any early Jew saw this as a prophecy about Messiah, much less a prophecy about a virginal conception. The Targums do tend to interpret Isaiah 9:5-6 messianically, but it is not clear that they view Isaiah 7:14 in a similar light.” Ben Witherington III, “Birth of Jesus” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 60.

[16] Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 33.

[17] Watts, Isaiah 1-33, I:135.

[18] C. H. Gordon, “˓Almah in Isaiah 7:14.” JBR 21 (1953): 106; C. Lattey, “The Term ˓Almah in Is. 7:14.” CBQ 9 (1947): 89–95; A. E. Myers, “Use of ˓almah in the Old Testament.” LQ 7 (1955): 137–401; J. J. Owens, “The Meaning of ˓almah in the Old Testament.” RevExp 50 (1953): 56–60; J. F. Steinmueller, “Etymology and Biblical Usage of ˓Almah.” CBQ 2 (1940): 28–43; J. Walton, “עֲלוּמִים” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. W. A. Van Gemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 6596.

[19] “If we have difficulty in solving the mystery of the עלמה, that does not mean that the prophecy was a riddle for those who heard it (or originally read the book). It is not characteristic of prophetic oracles that they cannot be understood.” (Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991), 291.

[20] G.J. Wenham, “Bethulah, ‘A Girl of Marriageable Age,’” VT 22 (1972): 326-348.

[21] John Oswalt, “Isaiah, Book of” in Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Ed. G.K. Beale, D.A. Carson, Benjamin L. Gladd, and Andrew David Naselli (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023), 355.

[22] The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that was translated by a committee of seventy scholars. Matthew’s audience was reading his Gospel account in Greek and reading the Old Testament Scriptures in Greek. And so, it makes sense why Matthew would cite the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible when this was the language of their Scriptures.

[23] G. Delling, “Παρθένος.” TDNT. 5:826–837.

[24] “Clearly the LXX translators, with their striking use of parthenos, understood it to refer to more than an ordinary birth, and the choice of ‘almâ in the Hebrew as well as the symbolic name ‘Immanuel’ suggests that they were right” R. T. France, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Leicester, 1985).

[25] Oswalt, “Isaiah,” 355. There are those like Bart D. Ehrman who suggest that Matthew did not know the Hebrew and created the virgin birth by reading the LXX translation of Isaiah 7:14 and misapplying this text by saying Jesus “fulfills” the Scriptures as “Immanuel.” He says, “Matthew took the passage to be a messianic tradition and so indicated that Jesus fulfilled it, just as he fulfilled all the other prophecies of scripture, by being born of a ‘virgin.’ It does not take too much thought to realize, though, that Matthew may have been giving ‘scriptural justification’ for a tradition he inherited that originally had a different import.” (How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. New York: Harper One, 2014), 243. However, as Grant R. Osborne notes, “Matthew utilized this Septuagintal emphasis and applied it to the virgin birth of Jesus.” (Matthew, ZECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 79.

[26] Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Ed. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 4. See also “Matthew, Gospel of” in Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Ed. G.K. Beale, D.A. Carson, Benjamin L. Gladd, and Andrew David Naselli (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023).

[27] John N. Oswalt, Isaiah, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 140.

[28] Watts, Isaiah 1-39, I:136. In the Ancient Near East, young women were virgins because the patriarchs protected their daughter’s innocence. That is why the young woman is commonly understood to be a virgin.

[29] Blomberg, Matthew, 59–60; Carson, “Matthew,” 79–80; France, Matthew, 79–80; Keener, Matthew, 87; Osborne, Matthew, 79.

[30] Blomberg, Matthew, 60.

[31] E.H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 404; Watts, Isaiah 1-33, I:138; J.T. Willis, Isaiah, LWCOT (Austin, TX: Sweet, 1980), 157-169.

[32] John N. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), I:213.

[33] W. J. Beecher, “The Prophecy of the Virgin Mother” in Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation. Ed. W. C. Kaiser (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 1979–185; J. P. Brennan, “Virgin and Child in Is. 7:14.” TBT 1 (1964): 968–974; C. L. Feinberg, “The Virgin Birth in the Old Testament and Is. 7:14.” BSac 119 (1962): 251–258; W. Mueller, “Virgin Shall Conceive.” EvQ 32 (1960): 203–207.

[34] Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 34.

[35] Blomberg, “Matthew,” 5.

[36] Robert R. Taylor Jr., “Difficult Texts from Isaiah and Jeremiah” in Difficult Texts of the Old Testament Explained. Ed. Wendell Winkler (Tuscaloosa, AL: Winkler Publications, 1982), 354. While I highly respect and adore the late brother Taylor, I found that much of his critique is anti-scholarship and modern translations primarily because they do not favor the translation almah as “virgin” and instead favor “woman.”  He says, “This modernistic shift should prove to every beholder that they really do not know what they are talking about in the glib speeches they make and the superficial writing they do relative to our Lord’s virgin birth.” (346)

[37] Donald A. Hagner, The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 200.

[38] Benjamin L. Gladd, Handbook on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021), 8.

[39] Stephen J. Wellum, God the Son Incarnate (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 237.

[40] Charles L. Quarles, Matthew, EBTC (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 118-119.

[41] Quarles, Matthew, 54.

[42] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), I:20.

[43] James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 363-364. He suggests that “Matthew is claiming is not predictive but typological.” However, I would argue that the prophets are writing a messianic prophecy that may not require the prophet’s knowledge of the incarnation but would necessarily refer to Jesus in a fuller sense.

[44] Daniel J. Trier, Lord Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2023), 131.

[45] Jack P. Lewis, “Predicting the Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14)” in Exegesis of Difficult Biblical Passages (Searcy, AK: Resource Publications, 1988), 53.

[46] Oswalt, Isaiah, 141.

[47] Eric Lyons, The Anvil Rings: Answers to Alleged Bible Discrepancies, Vol. III (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 2021), 164. “The fact that Matthew wrote of the Messiah’s ‘name’ being ‘Immanuel’ in verse 23, but ‘Jesus’ in verses 21 and 25, clearly shows that Matthew understood that one name (Jesus) was a given, literal name, while the other (Immanuel), similar to Jesus’ title ‘Christ,’ characterized His essence.” (165) In addition, this also connects Jesus to the promised Immanuel.

[48] Hagner, Matthew 1-13, I:21.

[49] Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992), 31.

[50] Osborne, Matthew, 82.

[51] Quarles, Matthew, 55.

[52] God’s presence is revealed through Jesus in the beginning, middle, and end of Matthew’s Gospel, which illustrates the point that each of “these references frame and support everything in between.” (Richard B. Hays, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 38.