To Know or Not to Know:

Did Isaiah Actually Know the Extent of What He Was Prophesying in 7:14?

 By Jamie St. Ours

The Conundrum of the Hermeneutic of Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23

Amongst all of the collaboration and agreement on the main tenets of the Christian faith, much tension exists in the realm of hermeneutics. The debates have raged and will continue to rage regarding dispensational and non-dispensational hermeneutical approaches. The passage that is the subject of this writing is no exception and does illicit much contention. At the crux of the issue when looking at Matthew’s usage of Isaiah 7:14 is whether or not Isaiah (or any Old Testament prophet) had a greater understanding of his prophecy than simply the immediate fulfillment in the original timeline. For example, when Isaiah prophesies, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14), does he know of a greater and further fulfillment or is he speaking of his immediate circumstances? Is it possible the answer is that both are true?

There is a consensus of agreement that the statement has a dual (if not partial) fulfillment, one being in the immediate context and a prophetic utterance regarding the Son who will come through the virgin Mary and would be the long-awaited and long-promised Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. The question is whether the original author, Isaiah, had this knowledge of Messianic fulfillment or not. Was this divinely inspired to him, or was this an example of sensus plenior where there is a fuller sense that was unknown to the original author, and Isaiah would not have had that understanding at the time of the prophecy? Above that is the question as to whether Matthew’s quotation of the prophecy is a valid hermeneutic derived from the context of Isaiah 7 or simply something only known in light of the New Testament fulfillment. Was Matthew justified in his usage of the prophecy of Isaiah from a context that does not overtly lend itself to a Messianic reading in the immediate context?

Theological & Debated Issues of the Hermeneutics of Isaiah 7 & Matthew 1

This is not an apologetic defense of the doctrine of the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus. However, it is important to declare, both grammatically and contextually, that the virgin birth is in no way a man-made doctrine contrived to exalt the historical Jesus to mythical heights. Contextually, it is clear from a cursory reading of Matthew 1:18 that a legitimate virgin (defined as a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man) is clearly portrayed in the text. Any argumentation of the vocabulary used in Matthew 1:23 or Isaiah 7:14 is rendered irrelevant by the clear indication that Joseph and Mary, though betrothed, had never consummated their relationship. Matthew demonstrates that, after Mary’s angelic encounter and Joseph’s revelatory dream, both kept themselves pure until after the birth of the Lord Jesus. It is succinctly stated, “And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus” (Mt. 1:24-25). In this verse, Matthew does not use the same word for virgin as he did in 1:23, instead using a far more definitive phrase (similarly in Luke 1) that means ‘known not’ or ‘not known by a man’ which eliminates the banter over linguistical use of the term virgin.[1]

Of more pertinent importance for this paper is the usage of Isaiah 7:14 by Matthew in the birth narrative of Jesus and whether a dispensational hermeneutical understanding accounts for the dual fulfillment of the prophecy. Non-dispensationalists will argue that the passage has a dual fulfillment (which dispensationalists would agree) but that in Isaiah’s mind, there would have only been the immediate fulfillment at play, and the prophet would not have had a long-term Messianic fulfillment in mind. Namely, what is at stake is the question of the authorial intent of the prophecy.[2]

Opponents who claim Isaiah did not have a future Messianic purpose in mind point to the immediate context and fulfillment of the prophecy. In Isaiah 7, the word ‘sign’ is used to show the power of God to control and reveal future events. Ahaz’s refusal to ask for the sign does nothing to stop the sign from being given and to it being fulfilled. The question remains as to how it is truly fulfilled. One major argument is that Isaiah sees nothing but the immediate fulfillment that allegedly occurs in the rest of chapter 7 and into chapter 8 through the child that is born as the sign to Ahaz. There is good reason that this has been and will continue to be a highly debated situation and has had many interpretations through many generations. With that said, it has been proposed that there are essentially three possible interpretive choices on the table for consideration:

The first view that Isaiah only had a Messianic fulfillment in view must ignore the immediate context of the happenings of Isaiah 7 and the surrounding chapters. It can and has been argued that there is no clear and direct fulfillment in this section of Scripture that is an obvious fulfillment. The section is full of vague references to a sign, a virgin, a child, judgment, and a promise that encapsulate the first twelve chapters of Isaiah’s prophecy. Aiding in this view is the overarching poetic structure of the book, which departs from the mainly narrative forms of accounts found in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles that generally cover the same greater historical contexts. This view focuses on ‘themes’ rather than specific details in immediate fulfillment. For example, the child corresponds to the ‘seed’ of Genesis 3 and the ‘seed’ of David from 2 Samuel 7. This would be a thematic fulfillment that supposes that the majority of the details contained are secondary or tertiary to the ultimate and sole fulfillment in the pinnacle of all prophecy, the Messiah and Lord Jesus Christ.

This view finds itself entrenched not merely in chapters 7-12 but in a greater sense, chapters 1-12. Finding its bearings on the repeated judgment and redemption aspects found throughout the entirety of the book of Isaiah, adherents point to the overall emphasis of Isaiah’s prophecy, which is centered on the Messiah’s coming as a final solution for the repeated sins of Israel. It does not ignore the details but sees them fulfilling the grander metanarrative of the writing, which is to look to the One who would come and put a final end to the cyclical behavior of a wayward people.

Another argument this position uses is that the events of Isaiah 8, specifically the birth of a son to Isaiah, are far too different than would qualify as a fulfillment in Maher-shalal-hash-baz because the differences are too much to ignore. This position takes a different issue with the almah debate as well. Whereas the word almah can mean a young unmarried woman, the word had become most likely to mean a true virgin, and therefore any fulfillment in Isaiah 8 of Isaiah’s wife being an almah would be dashed the moment she is married, and the union is consummated. She would no longer be an almah, and therefore, this could not be a fulfillment of the prophecy in Ahaz’s day.[4] That is a strikingly interesting viewpoint that seemingly has the prophet ignore the current situations while continually pointing towards the grand fulfillment in Christ. This would be a more non-dispensational sensus plenior understanding that would require the New Testament clarification to have a true understanding of this Old Testament prophecy. It would mean that Isaiah had no real Messianic understanding of the prophecy because it had not been fully revealed until Matthew’s usage some 700 years later. Proponents of this view would see Jesus as ‘the’ sign to the house of Israel as opposed to ‘a’ sign to King Ahaz. The main issue is that a sign was promised to Azah, and this approach would not allow for one, at least not one that is recorded in Scripture.

The second option, the multiple fulfillment model, has much traction in more classical dispensational circles and sees not only a Messianic view at play but fulfillments in the immediate context and timeline of Isaiah as well. This view would hold to a both/and understanding rather than an either/or viewpoint. Was there fulfillment in Isaiah’s day or in Matthew’s day, the answer would be both! One of the major logical arguments for this view is that if Isaiah had prophesied about a virgin who would bring a son, which would be a sign to Ahaz, then it would need to have some emphasis in Isaiah’s day. What impact would this have had in the immediate context if it were not at all fulfilled for seven centuries in the future?[5]

With that in mind, many have attempted to interpret the near and far fulfillments. The far is simply stated and nearly universally accepted that Jesus is the Son of the Virgin who will save the people from their sins. In the nearer sense, the waters are far muddier, and the bottom is not visible. Some ascertain the multiple fulfillment model by using a grammatical approach. When Isaiah states in 7:14 that God would give ‘you’ a sign, the ‘you’ is plural, possibly indicating the dual audience and dual fulfillment of the prophecy.

One view would hold that the immediate fulfillment would be in Isaiah’s son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which would also be a time marker of sorts to see the lands of the Assyrians forsaken before a coming of age of the child.[6] The content of the prophecy contained in Isaiah 7:3-14 addresses the situation happening in the present time which points to a near fulfillment of the prophecy. Contextually and grammatically, everything contained in that section is tied together, and it would certainly be a hermeneutical jump to ignore the context and see this as a singular Messianic fulfillment.[7]  Another noteworthy grammatical nuance to see is the Hebrew construct of ‘will be’ in Isaiah 7:14 is in a perfect tense, which indicates a ‘now with ongoing effects.’ This could point to a nearer fulfillment and a future Messianic fulfillment.[8]

The third potential option, the divine correspondence view, espouses that no Messianic fulfillment was intended by Isaiah but that the New Testament author (Matthew) uses this prophecy as a means of typology to find a fuller meaning in the prophecy than Isaiah had intended. While writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this cannot be eliminated. The child born in Isaiah’s day was a literal fulfillment to Ahaz but not Messianic in Isaiah’s mind.[9] The child would also be a type of the Messiah to come. This typological view gains more validation when combining views with a passage from Isaiah 9. The contrast between the gloom of Isaiah 8 is replaced with hope in the promise of the Messiah in Isaiah 9. With this more thorough Messianic explanation in Isaiah 9, it is more difficult to think that Isaiah had no real knowledge of the coming Messianic king or that Isaiah 7:14 pointed ahead to that King and also a sign to Ahaz. A pattern begins to emerge of the darkness of the days of Isaiah giving way to a future light that is repeated throughout the prophet’s writings.[10]

Conclusion

When dealing with a passage that has had so much contention and disagreement circling it for centuries, it would be wise to not address a conclusion with anything resembling dogma. The difficulty truly lies not in the New Testament fulfillment of the virgin-born Messiah but in the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah’s day. Seemingly every attempt to fit the prophecy of Isaiah 7:10-14 cleanly into the immediate context and see a clear fulfillment never seems to quite fit. It is certain that aspects of the prophecy are addressed, but there always seems to be far too much ambiguity to find a locked-in fulfillment. It seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It is clear that a thread of Messianic emphases creates a vein throughout the entire prophecy that seems to build in scope and detail as Isaiah moves through his writing. It is also important to remember the poetic nature of much of Isaiah, and it is difficult to isolate a particular passage of this prophecy outside of its thematic construction.

With that said, it is equally difficult to abandon the immediate ‘sign’ to Ahaz entirely and view the passage as exclusively Messianic. There does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation that allows one to completely ignore the context and speaks only to a future fulfillment 700 years later. There is some credence to the reader/interpreter seeing fulfillment in Isaiah’s day, albeit one that would most likely have been clear to the parties involved and may not completely correlate to the modern reader. That means there has to be some fulfillment to Ahaz as the ‘sign’ but the greater understanding that it would foreshadow ahead to the fullness of the ultimate ‘sign’ which is the Son who is born to the virgin who will come and fully embody Isaiah’s prophecy for all time. That Son will be called Immanuel (Isa. 7:14, 9:6), who will be the once and for all sign for all times to all peoples. This sign finds its ultimate fulfillment in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Though typology is not a profoundly present hermeneutic throughout Scripture, it does have its place, and it has seemingly found its home in this fulfillment. Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” (Mt. 1:22-23). Regardless, if one is able to ascertain all the nuances of the immediate context, this perfect fulfillment leaps from the pages in a divine fulfillment to the glory of God the Father.

______________

Jamie St. Ours is a lifelong Maine native (except for a 6-year pastorate in South Carolina) and is thrilled to be serving the Lord again in his home state at Bible Believing Baptist Church in Gray, ME. Jamie was saved at 22 years old and began preparing for his call to pastoral ministry about 10 years later. He is a graduate of NEBCS (BA Bible & Theology), Baptist Bible Seminary (MMin Bible Exposition), and is in the dissertation phase with Shepherd’s Theological Seminary (DMin Bible Exposition). Jamie has a passion for the local church and ministering to her through expositional preaching. He desires to teach and train believers in sound biblical theology and hermeneutics for the glory of God! Jamie has been married to his wonderful wife Claire for nearly thirty years, and they have five children and one granddaughter!

 

[1] D.A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 81.

[2] Michael Chiavone, “Matthew’s Use of Isaiah 7:14: A Valid Hermeneutic,” Digital Commons 129, (November 2018) 

[3] Michael Vlach, The Old in the New: Understanding How the New Testament Authors Quoted the Old Testament (The Woodlands: Kress, 2021), 144.

[4] Todd Bolen, “The Messiah in Isaiah 7:14: The Virgin Birth” TMSJ 33/2 (Fall 2022), 271 et al.

[5] Walter Kaiser et al, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 301.

[6] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7 (Chicago: Moddy, 1985), 20.

[7] Abner Chou, The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers (Chicago: Kregel, 2019), 114.

[8] Geoffrey Grogan, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 64.

[9] Michael Vlach, NT Use of OT part 12: Matt 1:22-23 and Divine Correspondence Between Israel and Jesus

[10] Herbert Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1985), 89-96.