The Problem in Isaiah⤒🔗

In the days leading up to Christmas, the Immanuel prophecy always draws the attention. The reason can be found in the gospel according to Matthew, where Jesus and Immanuel are closely linked together. Matthew inserted Isaiah’s prophecy concerning Immanuel right in the middle of his record concerning the birth of Jesus Christ. He began by saying that Mary was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit (v. 18) and he ends this section by mentioning that she gave birth to a son, and called him Jesus (v. 25). In between he pointed out that this was the fulfilment of an old prophecy by Isaiah, that the virgin would give birth to a son. Considering this position in Matthew, it is small wonder that Isaiah’s prophecy has traditionally been understood as a direct prophesy concerning the virgin birth. When Handel, in his great oratorio, The Messiah, included this prophesy among the Old Testament announcements of the Savour’s birth, he was in line with the general opinion of his time.

However popular this view may be, it is not without problems, as Calvin’s exegesis demonstrates. Over against Jewish commentators, Calvin defends the view that the Immanuel prophesy speaks directly of Jesus Christ. In his words, some rabbinic interpreters had the impudence to apply this prophesy to King Hezekiah. Calvin attributes this to their desire to lie, for Hezekiah was about fifteen years old when this prophesy was given. Other Jewish exegetes have taken this as a prophesy of the birth of some unknown son of King Ahaz. Calvin asks pointedly: “With what right can someone who ended his life without office and glory be called Immanuel? For to Him the whole earth is subjected.” Calvin mentions yet a third opinion, that this refers to a son of the prophet Isaiah himself, but he rejects this without even refuting it.

For Calvin it is clear that Isaiah’s prophesy speaks of the Christ. When Israel’s king refused to ask for a sign that Jerusalem will be safe, God himself gave a sign: The promised Redeemer will come. In him, God will fully reveal his presence among his people. It is obvious that the Jewish opponents Calvin is arguing against will disagree with this interpretation. Calvin does bring up their counter argument, that in the situation it would be foolish to give a sign that would only appear eight centuries later. In their view, an event taking place long after the death of King Ahaz cannot be a sign for Ahaz and his contemporaries.

Calvin attempts to solve the problem by stating that Isaiah speaks of two children. The prophet first deals with the complete salvation when he speaks of the child who is rightfully called God. After that, he deals with a specific salvation which was to take place in the near future. There, he is speaking of child that was either newly born or that would be born soon. To be specific, Calvin sees verse 14 as a prophesy of Jesus Christ and the two following verses as a prophesy of a child born in his own days.

Calvin is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he cannot agree with the Jewish exegetes, for that would mean to reject Jesus as the Messiah. On the other hand, he has to admit that Isaiah must give a sign which people of his own day could witness. His solution is to divide Isaiah’s prophesy into two distinct parts, although Isaiah’s words appear to form a unity. Calvin is a good illustration of the difficulty connecting Isaiah’s prophecy and Matthew’s application.

Isaiah’s Prophesy←⤒🔗

We need a closer look at Isaiah’s prophecy concerning Immanuel. It was spoken at a time when war was threatening the kingdom of Judah. Two kings, the king of Israel and the king of Syria, were gathering their armies to attack Judah. We cannot go into the complicated political situation ¹ but it is obvious that the situation is desperate for Jerusalem, the two tribes and the royal house of David.

At that point in time, Isaiah is sent by God to tell Judah’s King Ahaz that he need not be afraid, for the blazing anger of these two kings is no more than the last red glow of burning wood before it disintegrates (Isaiah 7:4). Isaiah is even allowed to offer Judah’s king a sign. Seen in the proper context, this sign is clearly intended to strengthen Ahaz’s trust in God’s word. Moreover, it was something God had done before. A parallel can be found in the history of King Hezekiah, who was very sick and received a prophecy that he would fully recover. He could choose one of two signs: the shadow on the steps would either go forward or go back ten steps. Hezekiah had accepted the assuring sign and had chosen for the shadow to go backward, as the more difficult sign (2 Kings 20:8-11). ² Compared to Hezekiah, Ahaz receives more room for choice. He is free to choose any sign, either in the deepest depths or in the highest heights. God’s intention was to strengthen Ahaz’s morale, so that he would stand up to the pressure, not trust in treaties and armies, but remain faithful to God.

Remarkably, Ahaz refused to be strengthened by a sign, on the pretext that he did not dare to tempt God. The actual reason will have been that he was already planning to go against God’s will and enter into a covenant with the powerful nation of Assyria. He did not want to see a sign. In that situation, the Lord gave him a sign, whether he wanted it or not: “The virgin will be with child and give birth to a son...” In this sequence of events, the sign can only be something Ahaz himself would experience. As a confirmation of God’s prophecy of safety for Judah, it must refer to an event taking place in the days of Ahaz and Isaiah. ³ Calvin’s exegesis cannot be maintained in view of what Isaiah recorded. The Immanuel prophecy must refer to an event witnessed by the king himself.

This means that Isaiah is not speaking directly about Christ’s birth from the virgin. This is confirmed by several other elements in the text. In the first place, the word Isaiah used is not the normal word for virgin, but for young woman, a girl of marriageable age. Further, the name of this child is to be Immanuel, but the son of Mary was never called Immanuel, he had to be called Jesus (Matthew 1:21). Moreover, the child mentioned in Isaiah will eat curds and honey, something that has no connection with Jesus, whatsoever. What clinches it is the fact mentioned by Isaiah that the land of the two attacking kings will be destroyed when the child is still very young. This happened within three years (see 2 Kings 16). Isaiah’s prophesy became reality many centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. ⁴

Fulfilment in Matthew←⤒🔗

This brings us back to Matthew’s use of the Immanuel prophesy. If Isaiah 7 does not contain a prophesy of the virgin birth, why did Matthew say that Isaiah 7 was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ? ⁵ What does Matthew mean by “fulfilled”? Actually, he used this word on several occasions that a prophesy was fulfilled. It will be helpful to take a look at some passages to see in what sense something is fulfilled. The outcome may be different from one’s expectation.

According to Matthew 2:15, Joseph took Jesus and Mary and brought them to Egypt for safety. This was a fulfilment of the prophesy of Hosea 11:1: “Out of Egypt I called my son”. Even a brief glance at this chapter will suffice to show that the expression “my son” in this text refers to the people of Israel, and not to the child Jesus: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Moreover, Hosea referred to something that happened before his time, but Matthew speaks of something happening much later. The term “fulfilment” obviously does not mean here that something is foretold by Hosea and realized in the time Matthew describes.

Something similar can be seen in the other instance of fulfilment of prophecy in Matthew 2. Here, the slaughter of the boys of Bethlehem is seen as the fulfilment of the prophesy of Jeremiah: “A voice is heard in Ramah...” (v.17). Jeremiah spoke of an event during the time Israel was conquered in his own time, as is made clear in the reference to the Lord’s announcement of Israel’s return from captivity (Jeremiah 31:16). In these cases, the word fulfilment must indicate that something which happened during the Old Testament, occurred in a fuller way and on a larger scale in the New.⁶ We may attempt using the same approach to the Immanuel prophesy.

Another consideration is that we should pay careful attention to the place where the Immanuel prophesy is used in Matthew 1. It is not connected with the conception of Jesus, for that is mentioned before, verse 18. Neither is it connected with the birth of Jesus, for this is recorded later, in verse 25a. Rather, it is connected with the commandment of the angel to Joseph to call Mary’s child Jesus. The angel emphasized that the child came for the salvation from sins. The common element connecting Isaiah 7 and Matthew 1 is salvation. However, when Matthew speaks of fulfilment he means that the salvation mentioned here is fuller than the one mentioned by Isaiah. In the case of Jesus Christ, the salvation is complete.

Judah, in the days of Ahaz, was in a very precarious situation. It was attacked by two nations, each of which was larger than Judah. It was no wonder that the king was looking for allies. Isaiah, however, tells the king that he need not fear for God will save his people. God promised to maintain his chosen nation, against overwhelming opposition. The sign that this would come true was the child whose name says it all: Immanuel, God with us.

The salvation Matthew 1 speaks of is greater, however. This is not a salvation from enemies threatening God’s people with oppression by the enemies and death. It is a salvation from sins, threatening the people with estrangement from God and eternal death.

At the time of Ahaz, Israel’s situation looked so desperate, that Israel’s king was working on a covenant with the world power Assyria. The situation of God’s people is much more desperate. Because of their sins, they stand condemned before a God who is a consuming fire. However, God brings his own Son into this world in the way of the virgin birth, to save his people from their sins. Jesus is not to be identified with Immanuel; rather, He is the fulfilment of the Old Testament Immanuel. In bringing his own Son into this world by way of the virgin birth, God showed to the fullest degree that He is with us.

Jesus Christ is the living proof that God is truly “with us.”

God’s people of all ages are not left alone in their struggle against sin. In Mary’s son, God has sent the Messiah, who is the Saviour in the fullest sense of the word.