Jesus was born of a virgin

JESUS WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Matthew 1:23 23"The virgin will conceiveand give
birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"
(which means "God with us").
Isaiah7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a
sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give
birth to a son, and she will call Him Immanuel.
STUDYLIGHT RESOURCES
Adam Clarke Commentary
Behold, a virgin shall be with child - We have already seen, from the
preceding verse, that this prophecy is taken from Isaiah7:14; but it may be
necessaryto considerthe circumstances ofthe original promise more
particularly. At the time referred to, the kingdom of Judah, under the
government of Ahaz, was reduced very low. Pekah, king of Israel, had slain in
Judea 120,000persons in one day, and carried awaycaptives 200,000,
including women and children, togetherwith much spoil. To add to their
distress, Rezin, king of Syria, being confederate with Pekah, had takenElath,
a fortified city of Judah, and carried the inhabitants awaycaptive to
Damascus. In this critical conjuncture, need we wonder that Ahaz was afraid

that the enemies who were now united againsthim must prevail, destroy
Jerusalem, and the kingdom of Judah, and annihilate the family of David! To
meet and remove this fear, apparently wellgrounded, Isaiahis sent from the
Lord to Ahaz, swallowedup now both by sorrow and by unbelief, in order to
assure him that the counsels ofhis enemies should not stand; and that they
should be utterly discomfited. To encourage Ahaz, he commands him to ask a
sign or miracle, which should be a pledge in hand, that God should, in due
time, fulfill the predictions of his servant, as relatedin the context. On Ahaz
humbly refusing to ask any sign, it is immediately added, Therefore the Lord
himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive andbear a son;
and shall callhis name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, etc. Both the
Divine and human nature of our Lord, as wellas the miraculous conception,
appear to be pointed out in the prophecy quoted here by the evangelist: - He
shall be called ‫לא־ונמע‬IM -MENU -EL ; literally, The Strong God with Us:
similar to those words in the New Testament: - The Word which was God-
was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth: John 1:1, John
1:14. And, God was manifested in the flesh: 1 Timothy 3:16. So that we are to
understand, God with us, to imply God incarnated - God in human nature.
This seems farther evident from the words of the prophet, Isaiah 7:15. Butter
and honey shall he eat - he shall be truly man, grow up and be nourished in a
human, natural way; which refers to his being With Us, i.e. incarnated. To
which the prophet adds, That he may know to refuse the evil and choose the
good:- or rather, According to his knowledge, ‫ותעדל‬ le -daato, reprobating the
evil, and choosing the good. This refers to him as God; and is the same idea
given by this prophet, Isaiah53:11; : By (or in) his knowledge (the knowledge
of Christ crucified, ‫ותעדב‬ be -daato ) shall my righteous servant sanctify
many; for he shall bear their offenses. Now this union of the Divine and
human nature is termed a sign or miracle, ‫תוא‬ oth, i.e. something which
exceeds the power of nature to produce. And this miraculous union was to be
brought about in a miraculous way: Beholda Virgin shall conceive:the word
is very emphatic, ‫המלעה‬ ha -almah, The virgin; the only one that everwas, or
ever shall be, a mother in this way. But the Jews, and some calledChristians,
who have espousedtheir desperate cause, assert, that"the word ‫המלע‬ almah
does not signify a Virgin only; for it is applied, Proverbs 30:19, to signify a
young married woman." I answer, that this latter text is no proof of the

contrary doctrine: the words ‫המלעב‬ ‫רבג‬ ‫ךרד‬ derec geber be -almah, the way of
a man with a maid, cannotbe proved to mean that for which it is produced:
beside, one of De Rossi's MSS. reads ‫וימלעב‬ be -almaiu, the way of a strong, or
stout, man (‫רבג‬ geber) In His Youth; and in this reading the Syriac,
Septuagint, Vulgate, and Arabic agree, which are followedby the first version
in the English language, as it stands in a MS. in my own possession - the weie
of a man in his waring youthe; so that this place, the only one that can with
any probability of successbe produced, were the interpretation contended for
correct, which I am by no means disposedto admit, proves nothing. Beside,
the consentof so many versions in the opposite meaning deprives it of much of
its influence in this question.
The word ‫המלע‬ almah, comes from ‫םלע‬ alam, to lie hid, be concealed;and we
are told that "virgins were so called, because theywere concealedorclosely
kept up in their fathers' houses, till the time of their marriage." This is not
correct:see the case ofRebecca, Genesis24:43;(note), and my note there: that
of Rachel, Genesis 29:6, Genesis29:9, and the note there also:and see the case
of Miriam, the sister of Moses,Exodus 2:8, and also the Chaldee paraphrase
on Lamentations 1:4, where the virgins are representedas going out in the
dance. And see also the whole history of Ruth. This being concealed, orkept at
home, on which so much stress is laid, is purely fanciful; for we find that
young unmarried women drew water, kept sheep, gleanedpublicly in the
fields, etc., etc., and the same works they perform among the Turcomans to
the presentday. This reason, therefore, does notaccountfor the radical
meaning of the word; and we must seek it elsewhere. Another well knownand
often used root in the Hebrew tongue will castlight on this subject. This is ‫הלג‬
galah, which signifies to reveal, make manifest, or uncover, and is often
applied to matrimonial connections, in different parts of the Mosaic law:‫םלע‬
alam, therefore, may be consideredas implying the concealmentofthe virgin,
as such, till lawful marriage had takenplace. A virgin was not called‫המלע‬
almah, because she was concealedby being kept at home in her father's house,
which is not true, but literally and physically, because, as a woman, she had
not been uncovered- she had not known man. This fully applies to the blessed
virgin: see Luke 1:34. "How can this be, seeing I know no man?" and this text
throws much light on the subject before us. This also is in perfect agreement

with the ancientprophecy, "The seedof the woman shall bruise the head of
the serpent," Genesis 3:15;for the person who was to destroy the work of the
devil was to be the progeny of the woman, without any concurrence ofthe
man. And, hence, the text in Genesis speaks as fully of the virgin state of the
person, from whom Christ, according to the flesh, should come, as that in the
prophet, or this in the evangelist. According to the original promise, there was
to be a seed, a human being, who should destroy sin; but this seedor human
being must come from the woman Alone; and no womanAlone, could produce
such a human being, without being a virgin. Hence, A virgin shall bear a son,
is the very spirit and meaning of the originaltext, independently of the
illustration given by the prophet; and the factrecorded by the evangelistis the
proof of the whole. But how could that be a sign to Ahaz, which was to take
place so many hundreds of years after? I answer, the meaning of the prophet
is plain: not only Rezin and Pekahshould be unsuccessfulagainstJerusalem
at that time, which was the fact; but Jerusalem, Judea, and the house of
David, should be both preserved, notwithstanding their depressedstate, and
the multitude of their adversaries, till the time should come when a Virgin
should bear a son. This is a most remarkable circumstance - the house of
David could never fail, till a virgin should conceive and bear a son - nor did it:
but when that incredible and miraculous fact did take place, the kingdom and
house of David became extinct! This is an irrefragable confutation of every
argument a Jew can offer in vindication of his opposition to the Gospelof
Christ. Either the prophecy in Isaiahhas been fulfilled, or the kingdom and
house of David are yet standing. But the kingdom of David, we know, is
destroyed: and where is the man, Jew or Gentile, that canshow us a single
descendantof David on the face of the earth? The prophecy could not fail - the
kingdom and house of David have failed; the virgin, therefore, must have
brought forth her son - and this sonis Jesus, the Christ. Thus Moses, Isaiah,
and Matthew concur; and facts, the most unequivocal, have confirmed the
whole! Beholdthe wisdom and providence of God!
Notwithstanding what has been said above, it may be asked, In what sense
could this name Immanuel be applied to Jesus Christ, if he be not truly and
properly God? Could the Spirit of truth ever design that Christians should
receive him as an angelor a mere man, and yet, in the very beginning of the

Gospelhistory, apply a characterto him which belongs only to the most high
God? Surely no. In what sense, then, is Christ God With Us? Jesus is called
Immanuel, or God with us, in his incarnation. - God united to our nature -
God with man - God in man. - God with us, by his continual protection. - God
with us, by the influences of his Holy Spirit - in the holy sacrament - in the
preaching of his word - in private prayer. And Godwith us, through every
actionof our life, that we begin, continue, and end in his name. He is God with
us, to comfort, enlighten, protect, and defend us in every time of temptation
and trial, in the hour of death, in the day of judgment; and God with us, and
in us, and we with and in him, to all eternity.
Albert Barnes'Notes onthe Whole Bible
Behold, a virgin shall be with child - Matthew clearly understands this as
applying literally to a virgin. Compare Luke 1:34. It thus implies that the
conceptionof Christ was miraculous, or that the body of the Messiahwas
createddirectly by the powerof God, agreeablyto the declarationin Hebrews
10:5; “Wherefore, whenhe cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and
offering thou wouldestnot, but a body hast thou prepared me.”
And they shall call his name Emmanuel - That is, his name shall be so called.
See the notes at Isaiah 7:14. The word “Immanuel” is a Hebrew word, ‫למננאל‬
‛immânû'êlcf. Ἐμμανουήλ Emmanouēland literally means “Godwith us.”
Matthew doubtless understands it as denoting that the Messiahwas really
“Godwith us,” or that the divine nature was united with the human. He does
not affirm that this was its meaning when used in reference to the child to
whom it was first applied, but this is its signification as applicable to the
Messiah. It was suitably expressive ofhis character;and in this sense it was
fulfilled. When first used by Isaiah, it denoted simply that the birth of the
child was a sign that Godwas with the Jews to deliver them. The Hebrews
often incorporated the name of Yahweh, or God, into their proper names.
Thus, Isaiahmeans “the salvationof Yah;” Eleazer, “helpof God:” Eli, “my
God,” etc. But Matthew evidently intends more than was denoted by the
simple use of such names. He had just given an accountof the miraculous

conceptionof Jesus:of his being begotten by the Holy Spirit. God was
therefore his Father. He was divine as well as human. His appropriate name,
therefore, was “Godwith us.” And though the mere use of such a name would
not prove that he had a divine nature, yet as Matthew uses it, and meant
evidently to apply it, it does prove that Jesus was more than a man; that he
was God as well as man. And it is this which gives glory to the plan of
redemption. It is this which is the wonder of angels. It is this which makes the
plan so vast, so grand, so full of instruction and comfort to Christians. See
Philemon 2:6-8. It is this which sheds such peace and joy into the sinner‘s
heart; which gives him such security of salvation, and which renders the
condescensionofGod in the work of redemption so great and his characterso
lovely.
“Till God in human flesh I see,
My thoughts no comfort find,
The holy, just, and sacredThree
Are terror to my mind.
But if immanuel‘s face appears,
My hope, my joy, begins.
His grace removes my slavish fears.
His blood removes my sins.”
For a full examination of the passage,see Barnes‘notes at Isaiah7:14.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible
Behold, a virgin shall be with child,.... These words are rightly applied to the
virgin Mary and her son Jesus, forof no other can they be understood; not of
Ahaz's wife and his sonHezekiah, who was already born, and must be eleven
or twelve years of age when these words were spoken;nor of any other son of

Ahaz by her or any other person since no other was Lord of Judea;nor of the
wife of Isaiah, and any sonof his, who never had any that was king of Judah.
The prophecy is introduced here as in Isaiahwith a "behold!" not only to
raise and fix the attention, but to denote that it was something wonderful and
extraordinary which was about to be related; and is therefore called‫תוא‬ a
"sign", wonder, or miracle; which lay not, as some JewishwritersF7 affirm,
in this, that the person spokenof was unfit for conceptionat the time of the
prophecy, since no such thing is intimated; or in this, that it should be a son
and not a daughterF8, which is foretold; for the wonder lies not in the truth of
the prediction, but in the extraordinariness of the thing predicted; much less
in thisF9, that the child should eatbutter and honey as soonas born; since
nothing is more natural and common with new born infants, than to take in
any sort of liquids which are sweetand pleasant. But the sign or wonderlay in
this, that a "virgin" should "conceive"or"be with child"; for the Evangelist
is to be justified in rendering, ‫המלע‬ by παρθενος "a virgin"; by the Septuagint
having so rendered it some hundreds of years before him, by the sense of the
word, which comes from ‫םלע‬ and which signifies to "hide" or "cover";virgins
being such who are unknown to, and not uncovered by men, and in the
Easterncountries were kept recluse from the company and conversationof
men; and by the use of the word in all other places, Genesis 24:43.The last of
these texts the Jews triumph in, as making for them, and againstus, but
without any reason;since it does not appear that the "maid" and the
"adulterous woman" are one and the same person; and if they were, the
vitiated woman might be called a maid or virgin, according to her own
accountof herself, or in the esteemofothers who knew her not, or as
antecedentto her defilement; see Deuteronomy22:28. Besides,couldthis be
understood of any young woman married or unmarried, that had knowna
man, it would be no wonder, no surprising thing that she should "conceive" or
"be with child", and "bring forth a son". It is added,
and they shall callhis name Emmanuel. The difference betweenIsaiahand
Matthew is very inconsiderable, it being in the one "thou shalt call", that is,
thou virgin shalt call him by this name; and in the other "they shall call", that
is, Joseph, Mary, and others; for, besides that some copies read the text in
Matthew χαλεσεις "thou shalt call", the words both in the one and the other

may be rendered impersonally, "and shall be called";and the meaning is, not
that he should be commonly knownand called by such a name, any more than
by any, or all of those mentioned in Isaiah9:6, but only that he should be so,
which is a frequent use of the word; or he should be that, and so accountedby
others, which answers to the signification of this name, which the Evangelist
says,
being interpreted is God with us: for it is a compound word of ‫לא‬ "God" and
drow eht ,erutan ruo ni doG siohw ,suseJ htiw seerga llew dna ,"su htiw" ‫עמנו‬
that was made flesh and dwelt among us. John 1:14, and is the one and only
MediatorbetweenGod and us, 1 Timothy 2:5 F11. So the Septuagint interpret
the word in Isaiah8:8.
(k) There is an article added in the Hebrew and Greek text, to point out the
woman and sether forth plainly: as we would say, the virgin, or a certain
virgin.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Behold, a virgin — It should be “the virgin” meaning that particular virgin
destined to this unparalleled distinction.
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us — Notthat He was to
have this for a proper name (like “Jesus”), but that He should come to be
known in this character, as Godmanifested in the flesh, and the living bond of
holy and most intimate fellowshipbetweenGod and men from henceforth and
for ever.
John Lightfoot's Commentary on the Gospels
23. 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.

[Behold, a virgin shall be with child.] That the word virgin, in the prophet,
denotes an untouched virgin, sufficiently appears from the sense of the place,
Isaiah7:14. King Ahaz there was afraid, lest the enemies that were now upon
him might destroy Jerusalem, and utterly consume the house of David. The
Lord meets this fear by a signal and most remarkable promise, namely, 'that
soonershould a pure virgin bring forth a child, than the family of David
perish.' And the promise yields a double comfort: namely, of Christ hereafter
to be born of a virgin; and of their securityfrom the imminent dangerof the
city and house of David. So that, although that prophecy, of a virgin's
bringing forth a son, should not be fulfilled till many hundreds of years after,
yet, at that present time, when the prophecy was made, Ahaz had a certain
and notable sign, that the house of David should be safe and secure from the
danger that hung over it. As much as if the prophet had said, "Be no so
troubled, O Ahaz; does it not seeman impossible thing to thee, and that never
will happen, that a pure virgin should become a mother? But I tell thee, a
pure virgin shall bring forth a son, before the house of David perish."
Hear this, O unbelieving Jew!and shew us now some remainders of the house
of David: or confess this prophecy fulfilled in the Virgin's bringing forth: or
deny that a sign was given, when a signis given.
In what language Matthew wrote his Gospel.
[Which is, being interpreted.] I. All confess thatthe Syriac language was the
mother-tongue to the Jewishnation dwelling in Judea; and that the Hebrew
was not at all understood by the common people may especiallyappear from
two things:
1. That, in the synagogues,whenthe law and the prophets were read in the
original Hebrew, an interpreter was always presentto the reader, who
rendered into the mother-tongue that which was read, that it might be
understood by the common people. Hence those rules of the office of an
interpreter, and of some places whichwere not to be rendered into the
mother-tongue.
2. That Jonathanthe sonof Uzziel, a scholarof Hillel, about the time of
Christ's birth, rendered all the prophets (that is, as the Jews number them,

Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Books ofthe Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and the twelve lesserprophets) into the Chaldee language;that is, into a
language much more knownto the people than the Hebrew, and more
acceptable than the mother-tongue. For if it be askedwhy he translatedthem
at all, and why he translated not rather into the mother-tongue, which was
known to all? and if it be objectedconcerning St. Matthew and St. Paul, that,
writing to the Jews, one his Gospel, the other his Epistle (to the Hebrews),
they must have written in the Syriac tongue (if so be they wrote not in
Hebrew), that they might be understood by all:--we answer,
First, It was not without reasonthat the paraphrast Jonathantranslated out
of the Hebrew original into the Chaldee tongue, because this tongue was much
more known and familiar to all the people than the Hebrew. The holy text had
need of an interpreter into a more known tongue, because it was now in a
tongue not known at all to the vulgar. Fornone knew the Hebrew but such as
learned it by study. However, therefore, all the Jews inhabiting the land of
Canaan, did not so readily understand the Chaldee language as the Syriac,
which was their mother-language, yet they much more readily understood
that than the Hebrew, which, to the unlearned, was not knownat all. Hence it
was not without necessitythat the prophets were turned into the Chaldee
language by Jonathan, and the law, not much after, by Onkelos, that they
might a little be understood by the common people, by whom the Hebrew
original was not understood at all. We read also that the Book of Jobhad its
Targum in the time of Gamalielthe Elder; that is, Paul's master.
Secondly, it is no impertinent question, Why Jonathan and Onkelos did not
rather translate into the Syriac language, whichwas the mother-language to
all the people, when both they themselves were in Judea, while they were
employed about this work, and laboured in it for the use of the Jews that
dwelt there? To which we give this double answer;1. That, by turning it into
the Chaldee language, theydid a thing that might be of use to both them that
dwelt in Judea, and in Babylon also. 2. The Syriac language was not so
grateful unto the Jews, who used it for their mother-tongue, as the Chaldee
was;as being a language more neat and polite, and the mother-tongue to the
brethren in Babylon, and which they that came up out of Babylon, carried
thence with them into Judea. You may wonder, reader, when you hear that

canonwhich permits a single man "to sayhis prayers in any language, when
he asks those things that are needful for him, except only the Syriac: While he
askethnecessaries forhimself, let him use any language but the Syriac." But
you will laugh when you hear the reason:"Therefore, by all means, because
the angels do not understand the Syriac language."
Whether they distinguish the Syriac language here from the pure Chaldee, is
not of greatmoment solicitouslyto inquire: we shall only produce these things
of the Glosserupon Beracoth, whichmake to our purpose:--"There are some
(saith he) who say, that that prayer which begins 'sermon,' is therefore to be
made in the Syriac language, because itis a noble prayer, and that deserves
the highestpraise; and therefore it is framed in the Targumisticallanguage,
that the angels may not understand it, and envy it to us," &c. And a little
after; "It was the custom to recite that prayer after sermon: and the common
people were there present, who understood not the Hebrew language at all;
and therefore they appointed it to be framed in the Targumisticallanguage,
that it might be understood by all; for this is their tongue."
Mark, the Hebrew was altogetherunknown to the common people: no
wonder, therefore, if the evangelists and apostles wrote not in Hebrew when
there were none who understood things so written, but learned men only.
That also must not be passedover, which, at first sight, seems to hint that the
Syriac language was not understood even by learned men. "Samuelthe Little,
at the point of death, said, Simeonand Ismael to the sword;and all the other
people to the spoil: and there shall be very greatcalamities." And because he
spoke these things in the Syriac language, they understood not what he had
said. This story you have repeated in the Babylonian Gemara, where the
words of the dying man are thus related; Let the Glosserupon the place be the
interpreter: "Simeonand Ismael to the sword [that is, Rabban Simeonthe
prince, and R. IsmaelBen Elisha the high-priest, were slain with the sword],
and his fellows to slaughter [that is, R. Akibah and R. Chananiah Ben
Teradionwere slain by other deaths; namely R. Akibah by iron teeth, and R.
Chananiah by burning alive before idols]; and the other people for a prey:
and very many calamities shall fall upon the world."

Now where it is saidthat, "Theyunderstood not what he said, because he
spake in the Syrian tongue," we also do not easilyunderstand. What! for the
Jerusalemdoctors not to understand the Chaldee language!For Samuel the
Little died before the destruction of the city; and he spake of the death of
Rabban Simeon, who perished in the siege of the city; and he spake these
things when some of the learnedestRabbins were by: and yet that they
understood not these words, which even a smatterer in the oriental tongues
would very easily understand!
Therefore, perhaps, you may beat out the sense ofthe matter from the words
of the author of Juchasin, who saith, He prophesied in the Syriac language,
But now, when prophecies were spokenonly in the Hebrew language, however
they understood the sense of the words, yet they reputed it not for a prophecy,
because it was not uttered in the language that was proper for prophetical
predictions. But we tarry not here. That which we would have is this, that
Matthew wrote not in Hebrew (which is proved sufficiently by what is spoken
before), if so be we suppose him to have written in a language vulgarly known
and understood; which, certainly, we ought to suppose:not that he, or the
other writers of the New Testament, wrote in the Syriac language, unless we
suppose them to have written in the ungrateful language ofan ungrateful
nation, which, certainly, we ought not to suppose. Forwhen the Jewishpeople
were now to be castoff, and to be doomed to eternal cursing, it was very
improper, certainly, to extol their language, whetherit were the Syriac
mother-tongue, or the Chaldee, its cousinlanguage, unto that degree of
honour; that it should be the original language of the New Testament.
Improper, certainly, it was, to write the Gospelin their tongue, who, above all
the inhabitants of the world, most despised and opposedit.
II. Since, therefore, the Gentiles were to be calledto the faith, and to embrace
the Gospelby the preaching of it, the New Testamentwas written very
congruouslyin the Gentile language, and in that which, among the Gentile
languages, wasthe most noble; viz. the Greek. Let us see whatthe Jews sayof
this language, envious enoughagainstall languages besides their own.
"RabbanSimeon Ben Gamalielsaith, Even concerning the holy books, the
wise men permitted not that they should be written in any other language

than Greek. R. Abhu saith that R. Jochanansaid, The tradition is according
to Rabban Simeon; that R. Jochanansaid, moreover, Whence is that of
Rabban Simeon proved? From thence, that the Scripture saith, 'The Lord
shall persuade Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem': the words of
Japhet shall be in the tents of Sem": and a little after, God shall persuade
Japhet; i.e. The grace of Japhetshall be in the tents of Sem." Where the Gloss
speaks thus; "'The grace of Japhet'is the Greek language;the fairestof those
tongues which belonged to the sons of Japhet."
"RabbanSimeon Ben Gamalielsaith, Even concerning the sacredbooks,they
permitted not that they should be written in any other language than Greek.
They searchedseriously, and found, that the law could not be translated
according to what was needful for it, but in Greek."You have this latter
clause cut off in MassechethSopherim, where this story also is added: "The
five elders wrote the law in Greek for Ptolemy the king: and that day was
bitter to Israel, as the day wherein the goldencalf was made, because the law
could not be translated according to what was needful for it." This story of the
'five interpreters' of the law is worthy of consideration, whichyou find seldom
mentioned, or scarceanywhere else. The tradition next following after this, in
the place cited, recites the story of the Seventy. Look at it.
When, therefore, the common use of the Hebrew language had perished, and
when the mother Syriac or Chaldee tongue of a cursed nation could not be
blessed, our very enemies being judges, no other language could be found,
which might be fit to write the (new) divine law, besides the Greek tongue.
That this language was scattered, and in use among all the easternnations
almost, and was in a manner the mother tongue, and that it was planted every
where by the conquests of Alexander, and the empire of the Greeks, we need
not many words to prove; since it is every where to be seenin the historians.
The Jews do well near acknowledge it for their mother-tongue even in Judea.
"R. Jochananof Beth Gubrin said, There are four noble languages which the
world useth; the mother-tongue, for singing; the Roman, for war; the Syriac,
for mourning; and the Hebrew, for elocution:and there are some who say, the
Assyrian for writing." What is that which he calls the mother-tongue? It is
very easilyanswered, the Greek, from those encomiums added to it,

mentioned before:and that may more confidently be affirmed from the words
of Midras Tillin, respecting this saying of R. Jochanan, and mentioning the
Greek language by name. "R. Jochanansaid, There are three languages;the
Roman, for war; the Greek, forspeech;the Assyrian, for prayer." To this also
belongs that, that occurs once and again in Bab. Megillah, In the Greek
mother tongue. You have an instance of the thing; "R. Levi, coming to
Caesarea,heardsome reciting the phylacteries in the Hellenisticallanguage."
This is worthy to be marked. At Caesareaflourishedthe famous schools ofthe
Rabbins. The Rabbins of Caesarea are mentioned in both Talmuds most
frequently, and with greatpraise, but especiallyin that of Jerusalem. But yet
among these, the Greek is used as the mother-tongue, and that in reciting the
phylacteries, which, you may wellthink, above all other things, in Judea were
to be saidin Hebrew.
In that very Caesarea,Jerome mentions the Hebrew Gospelof St. Matthew, to
be laid up in the library of Pamphilus, in these words: "Matthew, who was
also calledLevi, from a publican made an apostle, first of all in Judea
composedthe Gospelof Christ in Hebrew letters and words, for their sakes,
who were of the circumcisionand believed. Which Gospel, who he was that
afterward translatedit into Greek, it is not sufficiently know. Moreover, that
very Hebrew Gospelis reservedto this day in the library at Caesarea,which
Pamphilus the martyr, with much care, collected. Ialso had leave given me by
the Nazarenes,who use this book in Berea, a city of Syria, to write it out."
It is not at all to be doubted, that this Gospelwas found in Hebrew; but that
which deceived the goodman was not the very handwriting of Matthew, nor,
indeed, did Matthew write the Gospelin that language:but it was turned by
somebody out of the original Greek into Hebrew, that so, if possible, the
learned Jews might read it. For since they had little kindness for foreign
books, that is, heathen books, orsuch as were written in a language different
from their own, which might be illustrated from various canons, concerning
this matter; some personconverted to the gospel, excitedwith a goodzeal,
seems to have translatedthis Gospelof St. Matthew out of the Greek original
into the Hebrew language, that learned men among the Jews, who as yet
believed not, might perhaps read it, being now published in their language:
which was rejectedby them while it remained in a foreignspeech. Thus, I

suppose, this gospelwas written in Greek by St. Matthew, for the sake of those
that believed in Judea, and turned into Hebrew by somebodyelse, for the sake
of those that did not believe.
The same is to be resolvedconcerning the original language of the Epistle to
the Hebrews. That Epistle was written to the Jews inhabiting Judea, to whom
the Syriac was the mother-tongue; but yet it was writ in Greek, forthe
reasons above named. For the same reasons, also,the same apostle writ in
Greek to the Romans, although in that church there were Romans, to whom it
might seemmore agreeable to have written in Latin; and there were Jews, to
whom it might seemmore proepr to have written in Syriac.
A calculationof the times when Christ was born.
People's New Testament
Behold, a virgin. Rather {the} virgin, as in the Revision. Isaiahhad in view a
particular virgin, the mother of the true Immanuel. Like many other
prophecies, it had a double, a typical and a true, fulfillment. The first was in
the reign of Ahaz, concerning a temporal deliverance, but the higher reference
is to the spiritual Delivererof the world. The first is the type, the secondis the
greatevent that inspired the message.
Immanuel. This means "Godwith us," an appropriate title for Jesus among
men.
Robertson's WordPictures in the New Testament
They shall call (καλεσουσιν — kalesousin). Men, people, will callhis name
Immanuel, God with us. “The interest of the evangelist, as of all New
Testamentwriters, in prophecy, was purely religious” (Bruce). But surely the
Language of Isaiahhas had marvellous illustration in the Incarnation of
Christ. This is Matthew‘s explanation of the meaning of Immanuel, a

descriptive appellation of Jesus Christ and more than a mere motto
designation. God‘s help, Jesus=the Helpof God, is thus seen. One day Jesus
will sayto Philip: “He that has seenme has seenthe Father” (John 14:9).
Vincent's Word Studies
The virgin ( ἡ παρθένος )
Note the demonstrative force of the article, pointing to a particular person.
Not, some virgin or other.
They shall call ( καλὲσουσιν)
In Matthew 1:21, it is thou shalt call. The originalof Isaiah(Isaiah 7:14) has
she shall call; but Matthew generalizes the singular into the plural, and quotes
the prophecy in a form suited to its larger and final fulfilment: men shall call
his name Immanuel, as they shall come to the practicalknowledge that God
will indeed dwell with men upon the earth.
Immanuel (Hebrew, God is with us )
To protect and save. A comment is furnished by Isaiah8:10, “Devise a device,
but it shall come to naught; speak a word, but it shall not stand, for with us is
God. ” Some suppose that Isaiahembodied the purport of his messagein the
names of his children:Maher-shalal-hash-baz (speed-prey )a warning of the
coming of the fierce Assyrians; Shear-Jashub(a remnant shall return )a
reminder of God's mercy to Israelin captivity, and Immanuel (God is with
us), a promise of God's presence and succor. Howeverthis may be, the
promise of the name is fulfilled in Jesus (compare “Lo, I am with you alway,”
Matthew 28:20) by his helpful and saving presence with his people in their
sorrow, their conflict with sin, and their struggle with death.
Wesley's ExplanatoryNotes
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.

They shall call his name Emmanuel — To be called, only means, according to
the Hebrew manner of speaking, thatthe person spokenof shall really and
effectually be what he is called, and actually fulfil that title. Thus, Unto us a
child is born - and his name shall be calledWonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty
God, the Prince of Peace -That is, he shall be all these, though not so much
nominally, as really, and in effect. And thus was he called Emmanuel; which
was no common name of Christ, but points out his nature and office;as he is
God incarnate, and dwells by his Spirit in the hearts of his people. It is
observable, the words in Isaiahare, Thou (namely, his mother) shalt call; but
here, They - that is, all his people, shall call - shall acknowledge him to be
Emmanuel, God with us.
Which being interpreted — This is a clearproof that St. Matthew wrote his
Gospelin Greek, and not in Hebrew. Isaiah 7:14.
The Fourfold Gospel
Behold, the virgin shall be with child1, and shall bring forth a son, And they
shall call his name2 Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us3.
Behold, the virgin shall be with child. The Sonship of Jesus demands a
miraculous birth. If we doubt the miracle of his conception, we cannever
solve the perplexing problem of his marvelous life and death.
And they shall call his name. Rather, title; under the head of "name" the titles
of Jesus are also setforth at (Isaiah9:6).
Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. Nature shows God above
us; the Law shows Godagainstus; but the Gospelshows Godwith us, and for
us. The blessing of the church militant is Christ, Godwith us; that of the
church triumphant is Christ, us with God. In this world Jesus walked"with

us" in human form (John 1:14); and because he did so, we, in the world to
come, shall walk "with him" in divine form (1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 15:49).
In a personalsense Jesus may fitly be called"God with us", for he was God
and man united in one body.
Calvin's Commentary on the Bible
23.His name Immanuel The phrase, God is with us, is no doubt frequently
employed in Scripture to denote, that he is present with us by his assistance
and grace, anddisplays the powerof his hand in our defense. But here we are
instructed as to the manner in which God communicates with men. For out of
Christ we are alienatedfrom him; but through Christ we are not only
receivedinto his favor, but are made one with him. When Paul says, that the
Jews under the law were nigh to God, (Ephesians 2:17,)and that a deadly
enmity (Ephesians 2:15) subsistedbetweenhim and the Gentiles, he means
only that, by shadows and figures, God then gave to the people whom he had
adopted the tokens ofhis presence. Thatpromise was still in force, “The Lord
thy God is among you,” (Deuteronomy 7:21,) and, “This is my rest for ever,”
(Psalms 132:14.)But while the familiar intercourse betweenGod and the
people depended on a Mediator, what had not yet fully taken place was
shadowedout by symbols. His seatand residence is placed“betweenthe
Cherubim,” (Psalms 80:1,)because the ark was the figure and visible pledge
of his glory.
But in Christ the actualpresence of God with his people, and not, as before,
his shadowypresence, has beenexhibited. (111)This is the reason, why Paul
says, that “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” (Colossians
2:9.) And certainly he would not be a properly qualified Mediator, if he did
not unite both natures in his person, and thus bring men into an alliance with
God. Noris there any force in the objection, about which the Jews make a
gooddeal of noise, that the name of God is frequently applied to those
memorials, by which he testified that he was presentwith believers.

For it cannotbe denied, that this name, Immanuel, contains an implied
contrastbetweenthe presence ofGod, as exhibited in Christ, with every other
kind of presence, whichwas manifested to the ancient people before his
coming. If the reasonof this name beganto be actually true, when Christ
appearedin the flesh, it follows that it was not completely, but only in part,
that God was formerly united with the Fathers.
Hence arises another proof, that Christ is God manifested in the flesh, (1
Timothy 3:16.) He discharged, indeed, the office of Mediator from the
beginning of the world; but as this depended wholly on the latestrevelation,
he is justly calledImmanuel at that time, when clothed, as it were, with a new
character, he appears in public as a Priest, to atone for the sins of men by the
sacrifice ofhis body, to reconcile them to the Father by the price of his blood,
and, in a word, to fulfill every part of the salvationof men. (112)The first
thing which we ought to considerin this name is the divine majesty of Christ,
so as to yield to him the reverence which is due to the only and eternalGod.
But we must not, at the same time, forgetthe fruit which God intended that
we should collectand receive from this name. Forwhenever we contemplate
the one person of Christ as God-man, we ought to hold it for certainthat, if
we are united to Christ by faith, we possessGod.
In the words, they shall call, there is a change ofthe number. But this is not at
all at variance with what I have already said. True, the prophet addresses the
virgin alone, and therefore uses the secondperson, Thou shalt call But from
the time that this name was published, all the godly have an equal right to
make this confession, thatGod has given himself to us to be enjoyed in Christ.
(113)
James Nisbet's Church Pulpit Commentary
THE DIVINE PRESENCE
‘They shall call His Name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with
us.’

Matthew 1:23
This glorious statementis made on the basis of a glorious prophecy which
Isaiahuttered at an important era in Jewishhistory (Isaiah7:14). The name
of Jesus was exceedinglywonderful—‘Emmanuel,’ ‘God with us.’
I. With us in human form.—This is a mystery which no createdmind can
explain; yet it is no myth soever:it is a fact as sublime as it is mysterious.
‘Without controversygreatis the mystery of godliness:He was manifested in
the flesh.’And there was absolute necessityfor this. Man naturally craves for
a God. In Emmanuel there is all that man yearns for (Exodus 33:18; St. John
14:8-9). Thus the infinite Jehovahhas subjectedHimself to finite laws for this
essentialpurpose. ‘This is life eternal, to know Thee the only true God, and
Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent.’
II. With us in Divine sympathy.—And sympathy is that which man needs next
to God Himself. This also is to be found in Jesus;indeed, this was one prime
reasonwhy He became incarnate (Hebrews 2:16-18). His path in life was
accordinglymade as rough as ours; His foes were as many as ours; His
temptations were as fierce as ours; and for three-and-thirty years His cup of
sorrow was as full and bitter as ours. All this became Him (Hebrews 2:10-13).
III. With us in redeeming love.—All men are sinners, and no man canredeem
his ownsoul. God must provide Himself a lamb for a burnt-offering; and He
did this by sending Jesus, andJesus was willing to do His Father’s will.
IV. With us in Heavenly glory.—His own words overflow with consolationand
hope: ‘Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me
where I am; that they may behold My glory, which Thou hastgiven Me;for
Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the world.’ Whatever He is in
person, and whateverin bliss, His redeemedwill share with Him.
Illustrations
(1) ‘In Legh Richmond’s story of “The Young Cottager,” in his Annals of the
Poor, he tells how, when he visited the dying girl, he said to her: “My child …
Where is your hope?” She lifted up her finger, pointed to heaven, and then
directed the same downwardto her own heart, saying successivelyas she did

so, “Christ there, and Christ here.” These words, accompaniedby the action,
spoke her meaning more solemnly than can easilybe conceived. She realised
the abiding Presence ofChrist.’
(2) ‘Simonides, a heathen poet, being askedby Hiero, King of Syracuse,
“What is God?” desireda day to think upon it. At its end, he desiredtwo.
Then beggedfor four. The king inquired the reason. The poetreplied, “The
more I think of God, He is still the more unknown to me.” But Christ is
Emmanuel, God with us.’
(SECOND OUTLINE)
A NAME OF COMFORT
If we know anything of Jesus and His love, it is not by chance suchknowledge
has come. When we were enrolled under Christ’s banner at the Font, it was
God’s hand that led us there. When we knelt at a mother’s knee, and lisped
our earliestpetitions to the throne of grace, it was God’s voice that prompted
those prayers. In the hour of Confirmation—or the sacredseasonof our first
Communion—it was not chance, but God who was leading us on. And it is the
same all through life. The word Emmanuel is a Hebrew one, and expressesthe
double nature of Christ. What a comforting word! An ever-presentGod
always with us.
I. In poverty and obscurity.—WhenJesus was born in Bethlehem, what
humble surroundings were His! Christ’s coming down to earth has sanctified
poverty and obscurity. ‘Though He was rich yet for our sakesHe became
poor,’ and He has thus taught us that earthly position and wealth are as
nothing in His sight, unless there be true goodness as well.
II. In our work and labour.—When Jesus lived on earth, His was a hard and
busy life. Christ’s coming has also sanctifiedtoil. He is with us in our labour,
whateverit may be. And there is no disgrace in being a working-man—
whether we toil with our hands or our head. The busiestworkers are always
the happiest.
III. In our joys and sorrows.—WhenJesusdweltamong us, we know how
ready He was to rejoice with mankind in their happiness, and to weepwith

them in their sorrow. The Saviour’s life on earth teaches us that religion need
not make us grave and gloomy. There is such a thing as innocent Christian
enjoyment, and Christ has given the sanctionof His presence to every
pleasure and happiness that is without sin. There are enough dark days in life
without increasing their number, and Christ meant His followers to get all the
sunshine and brightness possible.
IV. In our Christian warfare.—As a man Jesus knew what temptation meant.
Now—as God—He looksdownfrom above, and ‘ever liveth to make
intercession’for us. How cheering this is, to have ‘God with us’ in all our
struggles and difficulties.
Rev. Philip Neale.
Illustrations
(1) ‘There is a touching incident recorded of a Highland chief who was
fighting bravely in the battle of Prestonpans. In the midst of the struggle he
fell mortally wounded. And when his soldiers saw what had happened and
that their chief had fallen, the clan beganto waverand gave the enemy an
advantage. Badly wounded though he was, the old chieftain noticed this, and
raising himself up, exclaimed, “I am not dead, but looking on to see my
warriors do their duty.” And these stirring words from the dying man revived
the sinking courage of the brave Highlanders. There is a more powerful
charm than this on the greatbattlefield of life. It is Emmanuel, “Godwith us,”
an ever-present Saviour, watching overus as we fight under His banner,
looking on to see His warriors do their duty.’
(2) ‘The fact of our Lord’s abiding presence oughtto make us goodto each
other. Look on your fellow-men, and learn from the Incarnation to respect
man, every man, as wearing the flesh which Jesus wears.Learnto look upon
all men as brethren, who have a claim upon us in their need. There is a noble
family in Italy whose name of Frangipanni means breakers of bread, that is,
for the poor. We who are bound togetherin one family with Him who gives us
our daily bread, not only bread for the body, but bread for the soul, should all
be breakers of bread with our brethren, helping those who have need to a

share of our blessings;for thus alone can we give something to Him who freely
giveth all things—our Emmanuel, God with us.’
(THIRD OUTLINE)
TRUTH STATED AND APPLIED
I. The truth stated.—The word‘God’—whatdoes it mean? God is; He exists,
and God is good;His poweris good, His righteousness is good, all He does is
good—supremelygood. Even when He gives sorrows His chastisements are
blessings in disguise. Let men saywhat they will, there is a God; and we are
not mistakenabout it. It is ‘the fool’ who pleads the contrary. Everything that
God has made speaks andsays there is a God. At night, looking at the awful
lightnings flashing and at all the heavenly host, can you in your hearts say
there is no God? And this ‘God is with us.’ It does not simply mean that God
is present with us; it means more than that: it means God is with us to share
with us, to partake with us in the closestway. Strengthis with us, love is with
us, happiness is with us, for God is with us. To bring out the full meaning and
truth of these words we need to look at the prophecy (Isaiah7). ‘Butter and
honey shall He eat, that He may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.’
That expressionis intended to point out the factthat it shall be a real, human
Child, not a child of an angel’s nature, not a child that can live on angels’
food, but a Child that shall be fed on butter and honey. All this was fulfilled
when Jesus Christ was born. What a wonderful illustration of God’s
condescending gracethat He should come thus to live with us!
II. The truth applied.—It is a truth that will apply to seekers, ifthey really
seek and want to understand with all their heart. They have this truth for
their own. They have been seeking foryears, and yet they have not found it.
How strange it is! There are some whom God loves with an everlasting love
and who love Christ; but they do not feelas if they cangrasp such a
wonderful truth as this—that God is with us. The two disciples on the road to
Emmaus wept and lamented that Jesus Christ was gone, and all the while He
was talking to them. You say, ‘Where is God?’He is with us. ‘Open, O God,
the eyes of Thy blind children! Let every one believe and take hold of the fact
that God is with us.’ The same truth of the abiding PresenceofChrist canbe

applied to all missionary workers, whether(a) in the foreign field or (b)
amongstthe slums of our own homeland.
Illustrations
(1) ‘When Napoleonwas on one of his voyages to Egypt, as he was pacing up
and down the deck one night, he overheardtwo men discussing about God’s
existence. One affirmed that there was a God; the other denied it. Napoleon
addressedthem and, pointing to the firmament of heaven, said, “Who made
that?” John Duncan, one of the most original thinkers the world ever saw, at
one time thought there was no God, thinking that which was, to be a mystery.
Ah, this thought takes awayall the meaning from history, from creation, from
man, and even from morality. When a man feels that sin offends nobody, that
there is no Being above him calledGod, that he is answerable to no human
tribunal about it, then that man will not think much about sin. Oh, it is a
dismal creed, but even John Duncan had it. Sometimes Godmakes men pray
before they believe in a God! And so John Duncan prayed and prayed, and
suddenly the thought came like a flash of electricity, and he tells us that on the
night when he thus thought he danced with delight. He said, “There is a God!
There is a God! There is a God!”’
(2) ‘There is a passagein Livingstone’s journal about the doctrine of Christ
and God’s presence with missionaries. “How soonI shall be calledbefore God
I know not.… O Jesus, grantme resignationto Thy will. On Thy word I lean.
Wilt Thou permit me to plead for Africa, because it is Thine? See, O God,
how the heathen rise up againstme as they used to do againstThy Son. I trust
in Thee. Thou givest wisdomto all who ask;give it to me, my Father! Oh, be
gracious, and all our sins do Thou blot out. I castmyself and all my cares
down at Thy feet. They will not furnish me with more than two guns.… I leave
all my friends in the hands of Christ.—Evening: Feltmuch turmoil of spirit in
having all my plans knockedonthe head by savages;but I know that Jesus
came and spoke to His disciples, saying, ‘All poweris given unto Me, in
heaven and in earth; go ye, therefore, and teachall nations. Teaching them to
observe all things whatsoeverI have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.’ ‘I am with you’—it is the word
of a gentleman.… I will not cross furtively by night; it will appear like flight,

and shall I fly? I will take observations of longitude and latitude.… I feel calm
in the Lord God.” Could we find a grander statementin the whole annals of
Christian heroism than this statement, which he never knew anybody would
read?’
Hawker's PoorMan's Commentary
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.
It is always blessedwhen we are enabled by the Spirit's teaching, to find out
the beautiful correspondencebetweenone scripture and another, upon the
same subject; for then we behold how one explains the other. Thus, as in this
instance. The ProphetIsaiah, more than sevenhundred years before the
coming of Christ, declaredthe miraculous impregnation of a virgin: and at
the same time told what the name of the son she should conceive and bring
forth, should be called, in proof of the mysterious union of his nature, of GOD
and man, in one person. See Isaiah7:14. Now here the event is accomplished,
and the Evangelistrefers back to that scripture in proof. Think, Reader, of
the wonderful correspondence!Who but GOD could have foretold? What
powerless than God, could have brought it to pass? And I beg the Readerto
remark yet further; everything in the prediction was mysterious. That a
virgin should conceive;and that a virgin should bring forth a Son. Forthe
mysterious part was that she continued in both still a virgin. For there would
have been nothing mysterious or uncommon, that a virgin should conceive, if
the ordinary means for conceptionhad been used. But the very prophecy
implied what the factproved, that it was without human means the virgin
conceived;and when she brought forth her son, still she remained a virgin.
And hence the grand infinite importance of the whole design; to accomplish
redemption. And here I beg the Readerto ponder well the subject, and then
let him with me humbly enquire, (for I do not presume to speak decidedly
upon the subject) was not all this preachedby the Holy GHOST to the
Church, in that law of Moses:Whatsoeveropeneththe womb among the

children of Israel, both of man and beast, it is mine. Exodus 13:2. I humbly
ask this question; was not this preaching CHRIST, at every birth of the first-
born? And was not this law enjoined wholly on CHRIST's account? See then,
Reader, if so, how JEHOVAH had an eye all along to this one great and
glorious event. And then think, how precious the event of CHRIST'S
incarnation ought to be in our eye! But I beg to make one observationmore on
this interesting passage.Thoughthe LORD commanded the first-born, both
of man and beast, to be sanctified to him, as a type of Jesus;yet, strictly and
properly speaking, the opening of the womb at the birth cannotbe calledthe
first opening, either in man or beast. This must have taken place before. But,
in the instance of Christ, and him only, it was strictly and properly so. He, and
he alone, opened the womb. So that here, as in all other points, Jesus must
have the pre-eminence. The types of Him could come no nearerin
resemblance, than what is said of them. But CHRIST, miraculously conceived
and miraculously born, truly and properly, in both acts, conceptionand birth,
opened the womb of the virgin; as in the greatwork of redemption afterwards
by his resurrection, he opened the womb of the earth. So that it was CHRIST,
and CHRIST only, of whom JEHOVAH spake in all those scriptures, which
declared, that whatsoeveropenedthe womb, should be sanctifiedto the Lord.
Hence He, and He only, became the true Nazarite to GOD. Oh! what beauties
are there in the scriptures of our GOD!And what sweet, soulsatisfying
evidences do they bring with them, at the same time of the truth of our most
holy faith. Reader!I pray you to be very cheeryof them, in the present day of
rebuke and blasphemy; and beg of GOD the HOLY GHOST, to enable you to
bind them as frontlets between your eyes. Theyare always precious to a
believer. And they will be eminently so, if I greatly mistake not, to the rising
generation, in proportion as those glorious truths, in this land, will be less and
less regarded. See John17:19; Luke 1:35; Leviticus 27:26; Numbers 3:13;
Luke 2:23, etc. Luke 18:8.
John Trapp Complete Commentary

23 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.
Ver. 23. Behold, a virgin, &c.]‫,המלעה‬ that Virgin, κατ εξοχην, that famous
Virgin foretold, Isaiah 7:14 . That he should be the seedof the woman was
made known to Adam; but not of what nation till Abraham, nor of what tribe
till Jacob, nor of what sex till David, nor whether born of a Virgin till Isaiah.
Thus by degrees wasthat greatmystery of godliness revealedto mankind. If
any Jew object, saith Chrysostom, how could a Virgin bring forth Dic ei,
quomodo peperit sterilis et vetula? Ask him, how could Sarah, when old and
barren, bear a child? The bees have young, yet know not marriage. The
Phoenix, they say, hath no parents. This headstone of the corner was cut out
of the mountain without hands; {Daniel 2:34} this flowerof the field, this rose
of Sharon, {Song of Solomon 2:1} hath Heavenfor his father, and earth for his
mother. Was it not as easyto frame this secondAdam in the womb, as that
first Adam out of the mire? Herein see a miracle of mercy, that the
incomprehensible God, that circle (whose centre is everywhere, whose
circumference nowhere), should be circledand coopedup for nine months
togetherin the narrow womb of a pure Virgin.
And shall bring forth a Son] Who in the birth opened the womb, Luke 2:21-
22, and so put her to pain likely, as other women. He hid the glory of his
eternal nativity under a mean and temporary birth to purchase for us a
heavenly and eternal birth. Whether the blessedVirgin were Deipara, the
Mother of God, raisedgreatstorms in the Council of Ephesus, and came to
commotions in the secularpart, and excommunications among the Bishops-
inasmuch as the Emperor declaredboth sides heretics, -but forasmuch as she
brought forth a Son that was God, we doubt not to style her the Mother of
God; not Moll, God’s maid, as one hath lately slanderedsome of us in print.
At Rome (it is said) was seen, at the same time, about the sun, the likeness ofa
woman carrying a child in her arms: and a voice heard, Pan, the greatgod, is
now about to be born, &c.

And they shall call his name Immanuel, &c.]By a wonderful and
unsearchable union: the manner whereofis to be believed, not discussed;
admired, not pried into: personalit is, yet not of persons:of natures, and yet
not natural. As a souland body are one man; so God and man are one person,
saith Athanasius. And as every believer that is born of God, saith another,
remains the same entire person that he was before, receiving nevertheless into
him a divine nature which before he had not; so Immanuel, continuing the
same perfect personwhich he had been from eternity, assumethnevertheless a
human nature which before he had not, to be born within his person for ever.
This is so much the more wonderful, because the very angels (which are far
greaterin glory than man) are not able to abide the presence of God, Isaiah
6:2. But this is our ladder of ascensionto God, John 3:13. Faith first lays hold
upon Christ as a man; and thereby, as by a mean, makes wayto God, and
embraceth the Godhead, which is of itself a consuming fire. And whereas sin
is a partition wall of our own making, denying us access,Ephesians 2:14;God
is now with us: and in Christ "we have boldness and access withconfidence by
the faith of him." Christ’s humanity serves as a screento save us from those
everlasting burnings; and as a conduit to derive upon us from the Godheadall
spiritual blessings in heavenly places, Ephesians 1:3 : if any Assyrian invade
us, we may cry, as they of old, "The stretching out of his wings doth fill thy
land, O Immanuel," Isaiah8:8, and we shall have help.
Sermon Bible Commentary
Matthew 1:23
The greatessentialdoctrine of Christianity lies in these few words, God with
us. To hear of Christ having come on this earth for a little time, and then
having gone awayagain, would not be to us glad tidings of greatjoy. The first
apostles wouldnot have won men to the Gospelif they had preachedan
absent Jesus, One who had left His Church and gone to heaven. The great
secretof our Christian joy lies in this fact, that we believe in a present, not in
an absent Jesus;one who is Emmanuel—God with us. Try to gethold of that

greatfact of our Lord's presence, and then you will see what results flow from
it.
I. First, that fact should make us humble. If the Son of God, King of kings,
and Lord of lords, chose to come to this earth in the lowliestmanner; if He
chose a manger to be born in, a workman's home to live in, the commonestof
clothing and of food, surely we, who profess to be His followers, have no right
to be proud.
II. The factof our Lord's abiding presence oughtto make us brave. If God be
for us, and with us, who can be againstus? No temptation need be too strong
to be conquered;no difficulty need be too hard to be surmounted by those
who know that God is with them—Emmanuel.
III. The fact of our Lord's abiding presence ought to make us goodto each
other. Look on your fellowmen, and learn from the Incarnation to respect
man, every man, as wearing the flesh which Jesus wears.Learnto look upon
all men as brethren, who have a claim upon us in their need. There is a noble
family in Italy whose name of Frangipanni means breakers of bread, that is,
for the poor. We who are bound togetherin one family with Him who gives us
our daily bread, not only bread for the body, but bread for the soul, should all
be breakers of bread with our brethren, helping those who have need to a
share of our blessings; for thus alone can we give something to Him who freely
giveth all things—our Emmanuel, God with us.
H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, The Life of Duty, vol. i., p. 39.
These words contain in themselves the whole history and course and means of
man's redemption. In their highest sense they express that unfathomable
mystery that God hath been with us, in our nature, that the Creatorhas taken
His creature into Himself; but, by virtue of that gracious mystery, they
declare God's presence in His Church, and with and within the souls of her
members.
I. Such, then, is the twofold force of the title "Emmanuel, God with us," God
in Himself, but with us, and such as we; not with us merely by mercy, or care,

or providence, or protection, but with us as one of us; not restoring us by His
word, as He createdus, but by becoming as one of us; not by raising us by the
hand when fallen, but by humbling Himself to us; Himself sinking to us, that
He might rise with us, placing at God's right hand, united with Himself, and
as part of Himself, the nature which He had redeemed.
II. And if He be such to us in deed and in the fulness of His purpose, if He
have been thus God with us, and purposeth that we should be thus with God,
how should He not be with us now in all things if we be His? What but sin can
hide His face from us, in that it blinds our eyes that we see Him not? Why
should He not be with us on our way, who is Himself the Way? To us, as to the
disciples, He shows Himself in different forms, but He is the selfsame Saviour
and Lord in all. He is our home and sure abiding-place; and all things in this
earth may speak of Him, for we dwell in a redeemedworld, which His sacred
footsteps have trod and sanctified. Only, if we would truly see Him, we must
seek to have the mirror of our hearts cleansed, thatit may receive His glorious
image. "The pure in heart," He hath promised, shall see Him. Love is the eye
whereby the Spirit sees God. Disputing about holy things but blinds us. If we
love, and as we love, we shall see and shall receive. While the world jangles
our Lord comes secretlyto us, if we, with pure hearts, draw nigh to Him.
E. B. Pusey, Sermons for the Church's Seasons,p. 54.
References:Matthew 1:23.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxi., No. 1270;H.
Wonnacott, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 1074;G. Brooks,Five
Hundred Outlines of Sermons, p. 9; Preacher's Monthly, vol. viii., p. 324;vol.
x., p. 341;New Outlines of Sermons on the New Testament, p. 1; A. K. H. B.,
Graver Thoughts of a Country Parson, 3rd series, p. 169;H. J. Wilmot-
Buxton, Sunday Sermonettes for a Year, p. 15;G. Huntington, Sermons for
Holy Seasons, vol. i., p. 15.
Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible

Matthew 1:23. Behold, a virgin, &c.— To what we have said on this prophesy
in its proper place, Isaiah 7:14 may now be added, that it is not possible to
understand it of any other persons than of the Lord Jesus Christ and the
BlessedVirgin, in whom alone it is completely and literally fulfilled: but
Bishop Chandler has, with so much learning and ability, explained this text to
the satisfactionof all rational persons, that I have nothing more to do than to
refer my readers to the 237th and following pages ofhis Defence of
Christianity. See also Green's fourth letter to Mr. Collins, and Usher's Annals,
A.M. 3262. The lastclause of this verse seems to supply us with a full proof
that St. Matthew wrote his Gospelin Greek, and not in Hebrew or Syriac, as
many writers have supposed.
Greek TestamentCriticalExegeticalCommentary
23. ἡ παρθένος] Such is the rendering of the LXX. The Hebrew word is the
more generalterm ‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ַ‫מְל‬ ָ‫ה‬ . and is translatedby Aquil., Symm., and Theodot. ἡ
νεᾶνις. De Wette cites the LXX rendering as a proof that the prophecy was
then understood of the Messiah. Butis it not much more probable that Aquila
and the others rendered it νεᾶνις to avoid this application? Can it be shewn
that the birth of the Messiahfrom a παρθένος was matter of previous
expectation? Certainly Pearson(onthe Creed, art. iii.) fails to substantiate
this.
καλέσουσιν]This indefinite plural is surely not without meaning here. Men
shall call—i.e. it shall be a name by which He shall be called—one ofhis
appellations. The change of personfrom καλέσεις, which could not wellhave
been cited here, seems to shew, both that the prophecy had a literal fulfilment
at the time, and that it is here quoted in a form suited to its greaterand final
fulfilment. The Hebrew has ‫את‬ ָ‫ר‬ָ‫,ת‬ ‘thou shalt call’ (fem.).
ἐμμανουήλ]= ‫ל‬ִ‫א‬ ‫ננ‬ ָ‫א‬ ֵ‫,מ‬ God (is) with us. In Isaiah, prophetic primarily of
deliverance from the then impending war; but also of final and glorious
deliverance by the manifestation of God in the flesh.

ὅ ἐστιν μεθ.]This addition is by some used to shew that Matthew wrote his
Gospelin Greek, not in Hebrew, in which it would not be likely to occur. On
the other hand, it is said, it might have been inserted by the personwho
translated the Gospelinto Greek. See Prolegomena, andJohn 4:25.
Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomonof the New Testament
Matthew 1:23. ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσουσι
τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐμμανουὴλ—Beholdthe virgin shall have in her womb [or
conceive], and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel.—The LXX. render Isaiah7:14, thus— ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ
λήψεται υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσεις κ. τ. λ.—Beholdthe virgin shall conceive in her
womb a Son, and thou shalt call, etc.— ἰδοὺ, Behold!)—a particle especially
adapted for pointing out a Sign.—See Isaiah7:14.— ἡ παρθένος, the virgin) In
the originalHebrew, the word employed is ‫המלעה‬ ;(63) and ‫המלע‬ denotes a
virgin;(64) whether you derive it from ‫)56(,םלע‬so that it may be one who has
escapedthe notice of man,(66) who has not been known by man (cf. Matthew
1:25, and Luke 1:34), for ‫םלענ‬ (to be hidden, to lie hid, to escape the notice of),
and ‫ערי‬ (to know, etc.), are opposedto eachother, both in their general
signification, as in Leviticus 5:3-4, and also in this specialone: or whether
lsnart cairyS eht hcihw htiw etangoc brev eht) ‫עלמה‬atorhas employed to
representἠκ΄ασεν(67)in Revelation14:18), signify ἀκμάια, in the flower of
her age. The Hebrew article ‫ה‬ (the), prefixed in the original to the word under
consideration(concerning which article cf. Gnomon on ch. Matthew 18:17),
points out a particular individual visible on the mirror of Divine prescience.
For the prophet is speaking of a Sign, and introduces it by the word “Behold,”
and then immediately addresses the Virgin herself, with the words, THOU
shalt call, etc. Isaiahindicates, in the first instance, some womanwho lived at
the time, and whose natural fecundity was considereddoubtful, who, from a
virgin, was to become a mother, and that of a son: she, however, as the
sublimity of the prophet’s words clearly show, was a type of that Virgin, who,
still a virgin, brought forth the Messiah;so that the force of the Sign was
twofold, applying to that which was close athand, and to that which was far
distant in the future.—See Alexander More.(68)The virginity of our Lord’s
Mother is not fully proved by the words of the prophet taken alone;but the
manifestation of its fulfilment casts a radiance back on the prophecy, and

disclosesits full meaning.— υἱὸν, a Son) sc. the Messiah, to whom the land of
Israelbelongs.—SeeIsaiah8:8.— καλέσουσι, THEY shall call) Both the
Hebrew and the LXX. have “Thou shalt call,” i.e., “THOU Virgin-Mother”—
“THOU shalt call,” occurs also in Matthew 1:21, addressedto Joseph:whence
is now substituted “THEY shall call,” i.e., all, thenceforth. The angelsays to
Mary, in Luke 1:28, The Lord is with THEE. Not one or the other of His
parents however, but all who callupon His name, say, “with us.”—Cf. Luke
1:54.—Thosewords deserve particular attention in which the writers of the
New Testamentdiffer from the LXX., or even from the Hebrew.— τὸ ὄνομα,
the name) This does not mean the name actually given at circumcision, but yet
the true name (cf. Isaiah9:5), aye, the proper name too, by which he is called,
even by his parents (cf. Isaiah8:8), and which is even especiallyproper to
Him, inasmuch as it is synonymous with the name Jesus.—Seean example of
synonymous names in the note on Matthew 1:8. Many of the faithful actually
address the Saviour by the name of EMMANUEL, as a proper name, though
it would have been less suitable in Jesus to call Himself God-with-us.— ὅ ἐστι
μεθερμηνευόμενον, ΄εθʼ ἡμῶνὁ θεός—whichis, being interpreted, God with
us). This interpretation of a Hebrew name shows, that St Matthew wrote in
Greek. Suchinterpretations subjoined to Hebrew words show that, the
writers of the New Testamentdo not absolutely require that the readerof
Holy Scripture should be acquainted with Hebrew. The Sonof Sirachalso
uses the word μεθερμενεῦσαι (to interpret) in his preface. The name God-
with-us, in itself, so far as it involves an entire assertion, is not necessarilya
Divine name (See Hiller OnomasticonSacrum, p. 848);and it was, therefore,
given also to a boy who was born in the time of Isaiah;and the same is the
case with the name Jesus:but in the sense in which eachof them applies
exclusively to Christ, it signifies θεάνθρωπος or God-Man. Forthe union of
the Divine and human natures in Christ is the foundation of the union of God
with men, nor can any one considerthe latter apart from the former,
especiallywhen treating of the birth of Christ.
Matthew Poole's EnglishAnnotations on the Holy Bible

Ver. 22,23. Bythese greatacts of Divine Providence, that which was spoken
and prophesied of by Isaiah, Isaiah 7:14, speaking by inspiration from God,
was fulfilled. Though things are said in the evangelists to be fulfilled when the
types have had their accomplishmentin the antitype, and when something
cometh to pass much like, or bearing some proportion to, something which
before happened in the world, (as I shall show hereafter), yet I take the sense
of being fulfilled here to be literally fulfilled; believing so much of that
prophecy as is here quoted did literally concernChrist, and none but him. But
we must take heedof interpreting the particle that as signifying the end of
God’s action in this greatwork of Providence;for the end for which God sent
his Soninto the world was before expressed, to save his people from their sins,
not to fulfil a prophecy.
That here only signifies the consequentof that act of Divine Providence, and
the sense is but only this, By all this which was done, was fulfilled that which
was spokenof the Lord by the prophet, &c. But the Jews have so much
clamouring againstthe application of that text Isaiah7:14 to Christ, and some
learned interpreters thinking the fulfilling mentioned to be no more than the
fulfilling of a type in the antitype, it will be necessarythat we make it appear
that it was literally fulfilled. To which I know of but two prejudices:
1. That it could be no relief to Ahaz, nor to the Jews, againsttheir sense and
fear of their present danger, to tell them that Christ should be born of a virgin
eight hundred years after.
2. That whereas it is added, Isaiah 7:16, Before the child shall know to refuse
the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsakenof
both her kings.
Supposing those two kings to be Pekahking of Israeland Rezin king of Syria,
who were at that time joined in a siege againstJerusalem, orat least
preparing for it, and the child mentioned Isaiah7:16 to be the son of a virgin
promised Isaiah 7:14, it could be no relief to Ahaz, nor any greatnews for the
prophet to have told Ahaz, that they should both leave the country before
eight hundred years were elapsed. Let us therefore first considerthe history to
which that prophecy related. Isaiah7:1,2 we are told, that in the time of Ahaz,

Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekahthe sonof Remaliah, king of Israel, went
up toward Jerusalemto war againstit. And it was told the house of David, (
that is, Ahaz), saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was
moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with
the wind. The expedient which Ahaz thought upon in this distress, was to get
Tiglathpileser, the king of Assyria, to join with and help him; which he
afterward did, hiring him with the silver and gold found in the house of the
Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, as we find 2 Kings 16:7,8. This
conjunction with idolaters was what the Lord had forbidden, and had often
declaredhis abhorrence of. To prevent it, he sends his prophet Isaiahto him:
Isaiah7:3,4, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashubthy son, at
the end of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field; and sayunto
him, fear not, neither be faint hearted, & c. In short, he assures him in the
name of the Lord, that the counselof these two kings should not stand, nor
come to pass, that within threescore and five years Israelshould not be a
people, &c., Isaiah 7:7,8. Ahaz knew not how to believe this. Isaiahoffereth
him from God to ask a sign for the confirmation of his word, either in the
depth, or in the height. Ahaz refuseth it under pretence that he would not
tempt the Lord, as if it had been a tempting God to have askeda sign at his
command. At this the Lord was angry, as appeareth by the prophet’s reply,
Isaiah7:13; And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing
for you to weary men, but will you wearymy Godalso? Then he goethon,
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin, & c. There
was nothing more ordinary in the prophets than to comfort the people of God
amongstthe Jews in their distresses withthe promise of the Messias;this we
find they often did with reference to the captivity of Babylon, and in other
causes ofdistress and trouble. And certainly that is the design of the prophet
here, in these words: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall
call his name Emmanuel. Ahaz had refused to believe the promise God gave
him, to defeatthe counselof these two kings;he had refused to ask a sign, for
the confirmation of God’s word. Well, (saith the prophet), God shall give you
that fear him a sign, he shall in his own time send you the Messias, whose
name shall be calledEmmanuel, and he shall be born of a virgin. Nor yet doth
he leave Ahaz and his people comfortless, as to their presentdistress, for saith
he, Isaiah7:16, Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the

good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsakenofboth her kings. The
Hebrew is rekh which I think were better translated this child, than the child,
for h seems not to be a relative, (referring to the child, mentioned in Isaiah
7:14), but a demonstrative, referring to the son of Isaiah, Shearjashub, whom
God, Isaiah7:3, commanded the prophet, going to meet Ahaz, to carry with
him, who probably was a very young child. Saith the prophet: Here is a little
child whom Godhath commanded me to bring with me; before this child be
much older, this land which thou art so much afraid of shall be quitted of both
those kings who have now some possessionofit; for at this time Rezin had
takenElath, a city of Judah, 2 Kings 16:6; and doubtless he and Pekahhad
takendivers places, forthey were come up to Jerusalemitself. And indeed, if
this be not the sense, it is very hard to conceive to what purpose God
commanded Isaiah to take Shearjashubwith him when he went upon this
errand. Isaiah 7:3. So that Isaiah 7:14 remains as a prophecy respecting the
Messiahonly, and given not for any relief of unbelieving Ahaz as to his
present distress, but for some relief to God’s people among the Jews, with
reference to their posterity. This will appear a much more probable sense
than theirs, who think that Mahershalalhashbazis the son mentioned Isaiah
7:14, whom we read of Isaiah8:3, who was born to Isaiah of the prophetess,
(who some think was at this time a virgin), and was a type of Christ; for the
Scripture doth not tell us whether that prophetess was a virgin or a widow,
neither was it any greatwonder that a virgin being married should conceive,
and bear a son. Nor had this been any relief to Ahaz, as to his present distress,
for this virgin (if she were such) was yet to be married, to conceive, andbear a
son; so that, according to that notion, we must allow three or four years
before Ahaz could have expectedrelief. This is further advantagedby that
passage, Isaiah8:18, Behold, I and the children which the Lord hath given me
are for signs:not the child, but the children. Shearjashub was for a sign of
God’s deliverance of the Jews from those two kings; Mahershalalhashbazwas
for a signof the destruction of the Israelites within five years, and also of
Syria, which fell out afterward. Thus Isaiah8:14 remains a literal prophecy of
Christ. For the Jewishinterpretation of it concerning Hezekiah, (born fifteen
years after), it is too ridiculous to be mentioned.

Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools andColleges
23. ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει. Nota Virgin as A.V. but the Virgin: so also the
Hebrew, which differs from this quotation only in having the singular ‘she
shall call.’ The citation agrees with the LXX. where however the reading
varies betweenἕξει and λήψεται and betweenκαλέσεις and καλέσουσιν. See
Isaiah7:14.
The historicalcrisis was this, Ahaz is alarmed by the threatened invasion of
Pekahand Rezin—the confederate kings of Samaria and Damascus. Isaiah
reassures Ahaz, who hypocritically refuses to ask for a sign. Yet a sign is
given. She, who is now unmarried, shall bear a son, probably a scionof the
royal house of David; he shall be calledEmmanuel, and before he arrives at
years of discretion the deliverance shall come, though a heavier distress is at
hand.
The prophecy is distinctly Messianic, but the sign in Isaiah is not concerned
with the manner of the child’s birth, but with the name, and the deliverance
which should happen in his infancy. Therefore, the weightof the reference is
to the name ‘Emmanuel’ and to the true Sonof David, whose birth was the
sign of His people’s deliverance.
μεθερμηνευόμενον, a late word (Polyb. and Diod. Sic.). Cp. τοὺς καλουμένους
ἐξτραορδιναρίους ὃ μεθερμηνευόμενονἐπιλέκτους δηλοῖ. Polyb. VI. 26. 6. The
explanation would not of course appear in the original Aramaic gospel.
Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
23. Behold, a virgin — Isaiah 7:14. This memorable prophecy was delivered
by Isaiah, under the following circumstances:Ahaz, king of Judah, was
invaded by the combined hosts of the kings of Israeland of Syria. He was
reduced to the lastextremity. Jehovahthen sentIsaiah the prophet to offer
him a SIGN that God would bring deliverance. The objectof the command
was to bring Ahaz to repose his faith in Jehovah. But though the prophet
offered him a signeither in heaven or in earth, yet the idolatrous king refused
to acceptany sign. Whereupon the prophet, rebuking the king for wearying

God, declares thatGod will give a sign, whether the king ask it or not, and
whether it should be to him a sign or not. That signis the standing sign for
Israelfor all ages, the future MESSIAH. As that Messiahshouldcome, so
Judah should be preserved until his coming. And when he should be born of
the virgin, he should not grow to years of intelligence in a shorter time than
would be required to sweepawaythose two invading kings from their power.
The words of the prophet, in our translation, are as follows:“Behold, a virgin
shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call him Immanuel. Butter and honey
shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choosethe good. For
before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land
that thou abhorrestshall be forsakenofboth her kings.”
To this we will append the elegantand exactversion of Bishop Lowth: And
Jehovahspake yet againto Ahaz, saying:
Ask thee a SIGN from Jehovahthy God:
Go deep to the grave, or high to the heaven above.
And Ahaz said: I will not ask;neither will I tempt Jehovah.
And he said: Hear ye now, O house of David:
Is it a small thing for you to weary men,
That you should weary my God also?
Therefore Jehovahhimself shall give you a sign:
Behold, the virgin conceiveth, and beareth a son;
And she shall callhis name Immanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat,
When he shall know to refuse what is evil, and to choose whatis good:
For before this child shall know
To refuse the evil, and to choose the good;

The land shall become desolate,
By whose two kings thou art distressed.
Upon this memorable passagewe remark:
1. The word virgin has, in the original Hebrew, the definite article the, THE
virgin. This implies that a particular and known virgin is predicted, (specially
recognizedby the mind of the prophet,)* who, though a virgin, should bring
forth an Immanuel; that is, a God-with-us, a God-man. Now we have already
remarked(on Matthew 1:18) that a Virgo Deipara is truly predicted in the
first promise in Eden; and that the expectationwas familiar to the ancient
world. Melkarth, so near as in Syria, was fabled to be such a god-man. The
virgin, then, of Isaiah, was THE virgin of prophetic foresight. 2. The tenses of
the Hebrew in this passage are not all future.
Hengstenberg renders it thus: “BeholdTHE virgin has conceivedand bears a
son, and she calls his name Immanuel.” All this shows that Hengstenberg’s
view of prophetic vision is correct. The powerful conceptions ofthe prophet’s
mind become as a present reality. His mind’s eye sees the panorama of future
objects and events now standing and moving before him. Time is dropped out
of the account. 3. This explains what to many commentators has been a great
difficulty in the following verse, Isaiah 7:16.
Before this ideal child, beheld in vision as now being born, is able to know
goodfrom evil, these two invading kings shall disappear. Isaiahtakes the
growth of the infant, conceptuallypresent, as the measure of the continuance
of the invading kings. That Immanuel, the predicted seedof the woman, the
prophet sees as alreadybeing born; he is being fed on nourishing food,
namely, butter and honey, to bring him to early maturity; but in a briefer
period than his growth to intelligence shall require, these invading kings shall
be overthrown, and Israelbe rescued. Thus was the Messiah, yet to be born, a
sign, not indeed to unwilling Ahaz, but to Israel, of her speedy deliverance and
permanent preservation. Well and wisely, therefore, does the inspired
evangelist, now that the Messiahis born, adduce this prophecy to show its
fulfilment in him. The amount of the whole is, that the spirit of prophecy

availed itself of the occasionofAhaz’s unbelief, to utter and leave on recorda
striking prediction of the Incarnation.
(*Prof. Nordheimer, in his Hebrew Grammar, gives the following rule of
syntax in regardto the Hebrew article: “The article is subjectively prefixed to
a common noun by way of emphasis, and to point it out as one which,
although neither previously or subsequently described, is still viewed as
definite in the mind of the writer.” In Biblical Repository, October, 1841,
Prof. Nordheimer showedthe express application of the rule to this passage.)
They shall call his name Emmanuel — This name they are directed by God to
give him; and there could be no reasonwith God to selectthis name but
because (as noted on Matthew 1:21) its meaning denoted a reality. The person
bears the name because he is what the name signifies. As the Lord was called
Jesus, saviour, because he is Saviour; and as he is called Christ, anointed,
because he is the Anointed, so is he calledEmmanuel, God-with-us, because he
is God with us. He is God with man; he is Divinity with humanity. And he is
calledGod with us because he is virgin-born, for the prophet conjoins these
two facts as antecedentand result. That is, because he has only a human
mother, and so a divine Father, therefore he is in name, and thereby in reality,
God with us. No Jewishor Unitarian gloss canevade this. It demonstrates that
Messiahis by birth, God with us; and therefore that he is so by person, by
nature, and by substance.
PeterPett's Commentary on the Bible
“Behold, the virgin will be with child, and will bring forth a son, and they will
call his name Immanuel,” which is, being interpreted, God with us.’
This quotation is takenfrom Isaiah7:14. There the birth of an heir to the
throne of David (Isaiah 9:6-7) was to be by a virgin (in LXX, translating
‘almah - an unmarried woman of marriageable age who canbe assumedto be
a virgin (see Excursus below)). The reasonfor this was that God had rejected
the house of David in His rejection of Ahaz because ofhis refusalto ask for
the miraculous sign that God had offered him, which was simply because he

did not want to have to do what God required. Ahaz wanted rather to trust in
Assyria (with no real conceptionof what it would involve). Thus because ofhis
refusal a miraculous signwas thrust on him, one that he did not want, and one
which would signalthe doom of his house. And that was that he must now
recognise thatthe future hopes of the house of David would no longer restin
his seed, becausethe Coming One would be born of a virgin. Godwould by-
pass the then current house of David.
(‘God Himself will give you a sign’ (Isaiah7:14) meant,‘God will now give you
a sign which is expressedin the words that He now declares to you concerning
a greatwonder to occurin the future, a wonder which will indicate your
rejection. It will be a wonder greatereven than any you could ask for in
Heaven and earth, and it will later be accomplishedas a result of His
miraculous powerand be the end of the hopes of your house, for by it the
Coming King will be born of no seedof man’.It was not intended to be a sign
like the one that God had originally promised. Ahaz had forfeited that).
The virgin would bear a sonwithout human father, thus supplanting the
house of Ahaz, and this son would then be called ‘GOD WITH US’, a
reminder to Ahaz that, while God had by Him come among His people, He
would no longerbe with him. The child would bring about what by his
unbelief he had lost. So the point behind the sign is not as something from
which Ahaz could take hope, something for Ahaz to believe in, but as
something by which he would be made to recognise his own failure and
rejection. When it actually took place would therefore not be important. What
mattered was Gods’emphasis on the factthat it would take place on the basis
of His word, and that it could feasibly be sufficiently imminent for lessons to
be drawn from it.
Now, says Matthew, we see that prophecy being filled to the full. It is being
brought to completion in that now a virgin will produce a child who will truly
be the indication that ‘God is with us’ in a unique sense.
‘They will call.’ When ‘they’ is used as a vague subject, as it is here in
Matthew’s versionof the quotation, it is a regularSemitic generalisation

indicating ‘Many will call Him’. (MT has ‘she will call’. LXX has ‘you will
call’).
The names applied to the coming babe are important in Matthew, and are
emphasised. Here He is Immanu-el, an indication of ‘God with us’. This is His
prophetic name, a prophetic declarationof what He is. His given name, given
by both God and man, will be ‘Jesus’, anindication that He is the Saviour
from sin. In these two names are summed up the Christian message. He is
God, He is with us, He is our Saviour.
EXCURSUS on Isaiah7:14.
This is a prophecy concerning Immanuel, the expectedChosenOne of God.
The ‘prophecy’ (forth-telling) which is cited here in Matthew is, “Beholda
virgin will be with child and will bring forth a son, and they will call His name
Immanuel” which is being interpreted, ‘God with us’. As we have seenthis is
especiallyemphasisedby Matthew as having been spokenby ‘the Lord’ and it
is takenfrom Isaiah 7:14. It need hardly be pointed out that huge discussions
have resulted from a study of this verse. To examine all those views is,
however, beyond the scope of what we are trying to do here and we must
therefore limit ourselves to what we see as the main points that come out of it.
The first is that the verse in Matthew refers to a ‘virgin’ (parthenos) who will
bring forth a son, ‘conceivedby the Holy Spirit’ (Matthew 1:20). And we
should note in this regardthat Matthew 1:24-25 in Matthew certainly affirm
that Mary had had no sexual intercourse with her husband until after the
birth. So howeverscepticalsome readers might be about his conclusion, there
is no doubt that Matthew is indicating by this a ‘virgin conceptionand birth’,
and moreoveris indicating by it a supernatural birth in which only one party
has been involved. This last fact is important. It demonstrates that it bears no
resemblance to other so-called‘virgin births’ in extant literature which are
often cited as parallels. In those casesa god in the form of a man had had
intercourse with a human maiden. But that idea is excluded here. It has
therefore to be consideredas coming from a totally different sphere and
environment. Here this unique birth is seento be the result of the working of

the Holy Spirit producing a child ‘miraculously’ without any hint of sexual
activity whether human or divine. It is not modelled on a paganmyth.
More likely parallels than paganmyths are ‘and the Lord visited Sarah as He
had said’ (Genesis 21:1);and ‘and it came about that Hannah conceivedand
bore a son’ (1 Samuel 1:20), in both caseswith divine assistance. Butthese are
more parallel with the birth of John the Baptiserthan with that of Jesus, for
in those cases intercourse is assumedto have takenplace.
But how then canthe birth of Jesus be seenas the ‘fulfilment’ or ‘filling full’
or ‘bringing to completion’ of the words takenfrom Isaiah, which are seenas
specificallythe words of YHWH?
In Isaiah the promise was of an unmarried young woman of marriageable age
(‘almah in Hebrew, parthenos in LXX) who would bear a child which would
revealto Israelthat God was with them, and would be a sign to Ahaz that God
had rejectedhim and his house.
The Hebrew word used for young woman in Isaiah7:14 (‘almah) is never, as
far as is known, used of a non-virgin or a married woman. It refers to a young
woman of marriageable age, with growing sexualdesires, who is not yet
married, and thus is assumed to be a virgin. The use of ‘almah in Song of
Solomon6:8-9 especiallyconfirms this. There it is contrastedwith queens and
concubines and clearlydescribes those who are in the same situation as the
loved one also being described, unmarried and virginal, and in Matthew 1:9 is
associatedwith ‘the daughters’ of their mothers, (they have not yet left their
own households), the many comparedwith the one. It is a word containing the
idea of sexual purity, without the taint that had come on the often cited word
bethulah (often translated‘virgin’). Bethulah was specificallylinked with
pagandeities of doubtful morality at Ugarit, and could be used to describe
fertility goddesses,who were certainly not virgins. It did not strictly mean a
pure virgin at the time of the prophecy, whateverit came to mean later.
Compare Joel1:8 where a bethulah mourning the husband of her youth is
describedwhere there are no grounds at all for considering that they had only
been betrothed.

Some have used Proverbs 30:19 as an example of ‘almah being used of a non-
virgin, when it speaks of‘the way of a man with a maid’. But there are no real
grounds at all for suggesting that that indicates sexualactivity. Indeed it is the
opposite that is more clearly indicated. There the writer is dealing with the
movements of different creatures. Using sexualmovements as an example of
someone’s movements, as being watchedby others, would, with an innocent
couple in view, have been heavily frowned on. And we only have to look at
what it is being comparedwith to recognise thatit is being paralleledwith
flight and directional movement which is watchedby others. The thought is
thus more of a couple on the move in their flirtatious activity, or even of the
man’s behaviour of which the young womanis not so much aware, the
observers being the amused onlookers as he trails her and tries to be noticed
by her. It thus rather supports the use of ‘almah for an unmarried maiden
than the opposite.
We cantherefore understand why here the LXX translators translated‘almah
by the word ‘virgin’ (parthenos), just as they did in Genesis 24:43. They
recognisedthe emphasis that Isaiah was placing on this womanas being
unmarried and pure.
It is true that the word used for ‘virgin’ (parthenos) does not always referto
what is today indicated by the term virgin, an intact virgin who has not had
relations with a man, but there is nevertheless always behind it the thought of
a kind of underlying purity. The term could, for example, be applied to sacred
prostitutes in Greek temples, who were by no means intact virgins. But these
were seenas having their own kind of ‘purity’ by those who wrote of them, for
they were seenas daughters of the temples and of the gods, not as common
prostitutes. They were ‘holy’. On the other hand, they were certainly not
technically virgins. Furthermore after Dinah had been raped in Genesis 34:2
she was still calleda parthenos in Matthew 1:3 (LXX). She was seenas pure at
heart even though she had been violated and was no longer an intact virgin.
And in Isaiah 47 the ‘virgin daughter of Babylon’ could lose her children and
be brought to widowhood(Isaiah47:1; Isaiah 47:9). In none of these cases
then are parthenoi seenas intact virgins. On the other hand, the idea of purity
might be seenas lying behind them all.

Nor did Hebrew at this time have a word for ‘intact virgin’. Virginity was
assumedfor all unmarried young women, unless there was reasonto think
otherwise, and then it was a shame to speak of it. The often cited ‘bethulah’
did not indicate that at that time. Nordid it necessarilyindicate purity. As we
have seenabove it was specificallylinked with pagan deities of doubtful
morality at Ugarit, and could be used to describe fertility goddesses, who were
certainly not virgins, or even pure. They were far more lascivious and lustful
than human beings. And in Joel1:8 a bethulah mourning the husband of her
youth is described. There are no grounds for thinking that she was a virgin.
Indeed if she had had a husband for even one night she would not have been.
(It is true that a betrothed man could be called a husband, but in a general
statementlike that in Joelit would not be the obvious meaning). Furthermore
the word bethulah sometimes has to be accompaniedby the words, ‘neither
had any man known her’ (Genesis 24:16;compare also Leviticus 21:3; Judges
11:39;Judges 21:12). That comparisonwould have been unnecessaryif
bethulah had specificallyindicated a virgin. So a bethulah is a young woman,
whether married or not, with no indication of her virginal state. An ‘alma is
an unmarried young womanof marriageable age, who if pure (which she
would be assumedto be) could in Israel be calleda parthenos, a pure woman.
The next thing we note is that this unmarried and pure womanwho is to bring
forth a child is to be a sign to Ahaz of the rejectionof him and his house
(demonstrated by the coming of Assyria on them - Isaiah 7:17), and an
indication that he will shortly see that Godcan really do what He says and can
empty the lands of both his enemies, something which will also be a warning
to him, for what can be done to them canalso be done to him.
Who then was this sonwho would actas a sign in this way? A number of
suggestionshave been made of which we will selectthe three most prominent.
1) It was a child to be born of the royal house, or of Isaiah’s wife, whose very
birth and weaning would act as a sign.
2) It was any child born at the time, the emphasis being on the factthat before
it was weanedwhat God had said would happen.

Jesus was born of a virgin

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Jesus was born of a virgin

Similaire à Jesus was born of a virgin (20)

Plus de GLENN PEASE

Plus de GLENN PEASE (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Jesus was born of a virgin