A question that has given rise to many answers throughout the Christian world and biblical studies community is how does Matthew come to the conclusion that the prophecy of a child being born to a “virgin” or “young woman” (an עַלְמָה) predict Jesus’ birth (Is 7:14; Matt 1:23)? There are three common explanations as to how Matthew understands and uses Isaiah 7:14 with a fourth less common, but more accurate explanation.
Matthew understood that the historical birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz to Isaiah’s wife (הָעַלְמָה) as predicted in Isaiah 7 was typologically predictive of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary.
It is undeniable that Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 to prove that Jesus’ birth was predicted well before it came to pass and to prove that the manner of Jesus’ birth was according to Scripture:
Isaiah 7:14 | Matthew 1:22–23 |
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” | “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel’ (which means, God with us).” |
This article will briefly look at the three more common explanations of Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 before spending more time on the fourth explanation.
1. The Prooftexting Approach
Most critical biblical scholars would say that Isaiah 7:14 does not predict Jesus’ birth in any way. They would say that Matthew is prooftexting. He found a passage that sounded similar to the event of Jesus’ birth and quoted it to convince his readers that Jesus’ birth was predicted and according to Scripture.
The key argument in favour of this approach is that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy concerning Isaiah’s day and the Isaiah text expects it to be fulfilled in Isaiah’s day. Proponents of this view argue that Matthew ignores the historical context into which Isaiah 7:14 was given.
However, Matthew 1:22–23 is clear that Matthew understood Isaiah 7:14 (or the event it predicted) as predictive about Jesus’ birth in some way. For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God, the prooftexting explanation must be rejected.
2. The Direct Prophecy Approach
A second approach to understanding Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is that Isaiah 7:14 is a direct prophecy of Jesus’ birth and never had anything to do with Isaiah’s day. Matthew certainly seems to understand Isaiah 7:14 as prophetic in Matthew 1:22–23.
This approach, however, clearly ignores the historical situation in which Isaiah 7:14 was given, which suggests it was to be fulfilled in Isaiah’s day and that הָעַלְמָה refers to a specific “young woman” in Isaiah’s day (note the presence of the Hebrew article), not necessarily a virgin.
3. The Double Fulfillment Approach
Another common approach to understanding Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is to assert double fulfillment. This approach takes the historical context of Isaiah 7:14 seriously, understanding it as direct prophecy concerning Isaiah’s day. It also understands Isaiah 7:14 as a direct prophecy concerning Jesus’ birth centuries later. This approach essentially combines approaches 1 and 2.
The flaw in this approach is that neither the text of Isaiah nor Matthew indicates double fulfillment. Further, there is no clear evidence in the Bible that double fulfillment was a hermeneutical method used by the biblical authors.
4. The Typological Fulfillment Approach
The typological fulfillment approach argues that the child predicted in Isaiah 7:14 was born in Isaiah’s day and that the historical birth was typologically predictive of Jesus’ birth. This explanation takes the historical context of Isaiah 7:14 seriously, including the translation of הָעַלְמָה as “this young woman,” as well as Matthew’s assertion that the birth mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 was predictive of Jesus and from a “virgin” (παρθένος).
To support the assertion that the typological fulfillment explanation of Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is the best interpretation, let’s discern what Isaiah 7:14 means in its literary and historical context and then how the events of Isaiah 7:14 are fulfilled by Jesus.
Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14
Isaiah 7:14 is found within the larger context of Isaiah 7:1–8:10, which addresses Syria and Israel’s coordinated attack on Judah. Isaiah 7:1 is clearly the beginning of a new section, evidenced by the Hebrew וַיְהִי and the formula “in the days of . . . .”
Discerning the end of the section is more difficult. The threat of the Syria-Israel attack and the fallout from it (all to do with Assyria) is concluded in 8:10. However, Isaiah 8:11–9:7 is certainly related to 7:1–8:10. Isaiah 8:11–18 is God’s encouragement to Isaiah, which leads into an account of the darkness and depravity of God’s people (8:19–22) and the direct prophecy of a future Davidic King who will bring light to the people (9:1–7).
Now that we have narrowed down the literary context of Isaiah 7:14 to 7:1–8:10, let’s look at narrative story of Isaiah 7:1–8:10.
- Isaiah 7:1–9: Syria and Israel are coming against Judah and Jerusalem to conquer it. However, God says to king Ahaz that their plan will not come to pass (Is 7:7).
- Isaiah 7:10–16 is a direct prophecy to Ahaz concerning the imminent threat of Syria and Israel. God is giving Ahaz and Judah a sign that these two kings will not destroy Judah and salvation will happen soon, in Ahaz’s day (Is 7:14–16).
- However, Isaiah 7:17–25 speaks about how after Assyria defeats Syria and Israel, they will come after Judah and invade it. Verse 17 begins as if it is a prophecy of blessing upon Judah, but the message turns sour (i.e., curds, sour milk) and we find that God will also be with his people in judgment.
- Isaiah 8:1–4: Isaiah has sex with the prophetess who is presumably the young virgin/woman of 7:14 (the הָעַלְמָה). She gets pregnant and God states that this is the child of Isaiah 7:14–16 (see Is 8:3–4). The promise that Syria and Israel will be defeated while the child is young is reaffirmed in 8:4.
- Isaiah 8:5–8 is about how after Assyria defeats Syria and Israel, they will come after Judah and invade it. God will be present in the midst of the invasion as the term “Immanuel” suggests (8:8, 10).
- Isaiah 8:9–10 speaks of a future hope for Judah. Eventually all hostile nations, including Assyria and those like it, will be destroyed.
The key question for us in this article is, who is “this virgin” (הָעַלְמָה) and who is the child “Immanuel”? It should be noted that (1) הָעַלְמָה can refer to a virgin or a young woman (most virgins in Isaiah’s day were young women) and (2) הָעַלְמָה is articular, indicating that it refers to a specific woman (“this woman/virgin”). Based on what is said in the prophecy itself, the young lady of 7:14 is most likely “the prophetess” (the wife of Isaiah) and the child (“Immanuel”) is the son of Isaiah who is named Maher-shalal-hash-baz (“one hastens to the plunder, one hurries to the loot”).
The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14–16 is a direct prophecy. However, it is not a prophecy of Jesus; it is a prophecy concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz, the son of Isaiah, in relation to the Syria-Israel threat upon Jerusalem. This prophecy was fulfilled in king Ahaz’s day and there is nothing in the text that suggests Isaiah 7:14–16 is a direct prophecy about both Maher-shalal-hash-baz and another distant child. Thus, Isaiah 7:14 is not a direct prophecy about Jesus.
Matthew’s Use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23
If Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in king Ahaz’s day, then why does Matthew quote it as if it is fulfilled by Jesus? The logical answer, that keeps the original prophecy and its historical and literary contexts intact, is that the historical event of a young lady giving birth to a child who will mark God’s salvation (i.e., the fulfillment of the direct prophecy) is a type that predicts the greater antitype. Thus, Isaiah’s wife (“this young lady”) is a type for Mary the antitype, and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (“Immanuel”) is a type for Jesus the antitype (also “Immanuel”).
I am aware that many of my readers may not be familiar with typology, so allow me to briefly explain what it is. Typology is a person, event, or institution (called the type) that prophetically predicts a greater person, event, or institution (called the antitype). For typology to be present, three characteristics must be present, with a fourth adding strength to the possibility that typology is present. The four characteristics are:
- Analogical Correspondence. There must be a significant analogical correspondence between the type and antitype.
- Historicity. Both the type and antitype must be based in history.
- Escalation. The antitype must be an escalation of the type in some way.
- A Pointing-Forwardness. Either the Old Testament or the New Testament should provide evidence that the typewas pointing forward to something (the antitype).
A clear example of typology is John 19:36: “For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘Not one of his bones will be broken.’” John 19:36 understands the Passover lamb’s death and result of death (the type) as typologically predictive of Jesus’ death and result of death (the antitype) (see Ex 12:46; Num 9:12; John 19:36).
So, are the four essential characteristics of typology present between Isaiah’s wife giving birth and Mary giving birth? Yes!
- Analogical Correspondence. Yes. Both Is 7:14 and Matt 1:23 speak of a young lady who gives birth to a child who is called “God with Us” (“Immanuel”) and proves that God is with his people in delivering them from an enemy.
- Historicity. Yes. The prophecy of Is 7:14 was fulfilled historically in the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz as presented in Isaiah. Jesus was born in history as presented in Matthew.
- Escalation. Yes.
- The woman in Is 7:14 is a young lady, whereas Mary was a virgin.
- The human child Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Is 7:14 is called “God with Us,” whereas Jesus is actually Godwho came to dwell with his people (“us”).
- The child Maher-shalal-hash-baz is a sign that God will save his people from a political threat and death, whereas Jesus, who is God, saves all who believe in him from their sins (Matt 1:21) and eternal death, something greater than any political threat.
- A Pointing-Forwardness. Yes. Not only does Matthew understand the fulfilled prophecy of Is 7:14 as pointing forward to Jesus, but the greater context of Isaiah also has a distant pointing-forwardness. Isaiah 8:19–9:7 is still part of the same literary context as Is 7:1–8:10 and Is 9:1–7 is a direct prophecy about the future Davidic king of which Jesus fulfills. It should be no surprise that Matthew views the fulfillment of Is 7:14 as typologically predictive of Jesus and his birth in light of the larger literary context of Is 7:14.
In conclusion, Matthew understood that the historical birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz to Isaiah’s wife (הָעַלְמָה) as predicted in Isaiah was typologically predictive of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary. Like Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Jesus’ birth was a sign that God is with his people and will deliver them from the threat of an enemy. Unlike Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Jesus was with his people as actual God, and Jesus did not deliver them from a political threat, but from the greatest threat of all—sin. We should praise our Good God for his foresight and for his grace in saving his people from their sin and using Isaiah 7:14–16 to help us better understand the significance of Jesus’ birth.
How Matthew 1:23 understands and uses Isaiah 7:14 | Brief Explanation |
Prooftexting Approach | Isaiah 7:14 does not predict Jesus’ birth in any way. Matthew is prooftexting. |
Direct Prophecy Approach | Isaiah 7:14 is a direct prophecy of Jesus’ birth and never had anything to do with Isaiah’s day. |
Double Fulfillment Approach | Isaiah 7:14 is a direct prophecy that is fulfilled twice: a child Isaiah’s day and Jesus in Matthew’s day. |
Typological Fulfillment Approach | The child predicted in Isaiah 7:14 was born in Isaiah’s day and the historical birth of that child was typologically predictive of Jesus’ birth. |