Jesus' Parables as Revealed Wisdom

The commission of Isaiah is a favorite text for a missions sermons. After Isaiah witnesses a glorious vision of God in the temple he hears the fateful question, “Who will I send and who will go for me?” (Isa 6.8). Like a child desperate to please his teacher Isaiah responds, “Look at me! Send me!” The prophet should have waited to hear the message he would be commissioned to give,

Go and say to this people, ‘Surely hearing you will not discern, and surely seeing you will not know.’ Make the heart of this people fat and their ears heavy and their eyes blind lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and discern with their hearts and turn and it will heal them. (Isa 6.9-10)

This is a foreboding commission. Isaiah is not called guide Israel to repentance but to turn people away! He alludes to covenant language of Israel’s stubborn refusal to obey God resulting in a divine curse (esp. Exod 15.26; Deut 32.15). The tragedy of this commission, however, is that Isaiah’s call is to announce the curse.

I sometimes hear people say things like, “Well, that’s in the Old Testament so . . .” and then go on to give some explanation as to why the OT is basically irrelevant for Christians. Even if we wanted to dismiss this text as being so “Old Testament,” we couldn’t. Jesus cites Isaiah’s commission to explain his most characteristic form of teaching – parables. Shockingly, Jesus found this message to be a useful explanation of his own ministry. Before Jesus’ citation makes sense there are some important features of Isaiah’s commission that need to be observed.

Typically, call stories are placed at the beginning of a prophetic book (cf. Jer 1.4-19; Ezek 1.1-3.15; Hos 1.1-3). This prompts the question as to why Isaiah’s call is belated to chapter 6. This peculiarity is a reminder that chapter 6 cannot be understood apart from the state of the people to whom Isaiah is called to prophesy. Apart from the context of Isaiah 1-5, the commission seems arbitrarily harsh. How dare God send a prophet to turn people away? In chapters 1-5 the larger picture comes into focus. Isaiah is called to a people who have refused to acknowledge their God (Isa 1.2-3; 2.6-8; 5.11-12), worship improperly (Isa 1.11-14; 3.8-9) and engaged in terrible injustices (Isa 1.15, 21-23; 3.11, 14-15; 5.18-23). Yet, God has graciously promised restoration (Isa 1.18-20, 26-27; 2.1-5; 4.2-6; 6.13b). In light of Israel’s offense and stubborn refusal to repent, the commission is God’s response to an unrepentant people.

The historical context of Isaiah’s prophetical call is relevant to understanding the passage. Isaiah 6.1 explicitly observes a significant chronological marker with the death of Uzziah (c. 739 bc). Early in his reign Uzziah prospered significantly (2 Chron 26.5). He was notable for his military conquests (2 Chron 26.6-8), building projects (2 Chron 26.9-10) and advanced weaponry (2 Chron 26.14-15). Later, however, he was afflicted with leprosy because of his arrogance (26.16-18) and rampant idolatry (2 Kgs 15.4-5). The Bible describes the latter part of his reign and co-regency with his son Jotham (2 Kgs 15.32-38; 1 Chron 27) as characterized by rampant economic injustice (Isa 1.4, 5, 23; cf. Amos 2.6; 5.10, 11) and a broken covenant relationship (Isa 1.3; cf. Hos. 4.6). It was in this context of economic prosperity and spiritual turmoil that the king died. Simultaneously, Assyria was rapidly rising to political dominance. As if these challenges were not enough, the king’s death left a vacuum of political leadership and looming political dangers from neighboring countries (cf. Isa 7.1-2). Israel was on the brink of political disaster and Isaiah is called to tell them there is nothing they can do to stop it.

The foreboding message of Isaiah’s commission is taken up in all four gospels as an explanation for why Jesus is rejected (Mt 13.10-15|| Mk 4.10-12 || Lk 8.10; cf. Jn 12.36-43; Acts 28.26-27). Matthew provides the lengthiest explanation (13.10-15) at a crucial point in his gospel. Matthew’s citation follows the LXX exactly, which in turn follows the MT fairly closely. Jesus explains that the reason for Jesus’ parables is to “completely fulfill” Isaiah 6.9-10 (Mt 13.14). Jesus’ disciples, unlike those who do not “hear,” are privileged insiders because of Jesus’ willingness to reveal himself to them (13.16-17). Parables, then, simultaneously reveal to insiders and conceal to outsiders. Jesus even says that he tells parables to intentional confuse outsiders.

The obvious question, then, is what differentiates insiders from outsiders? In Matthew’s gospel, the revelation of kingdom mysteries is given to those who are close to Jesus (Mt 13.11; cf. 12.15-21; 16.16-20), accept his authority (Mt 11.25-30; cf. 12.7-8; 16.1-4), and have faith (Mt 9.29-30; 16.8-11). Still, this revelation is portrayed as a divine gift first and foremost. This is especially evident in Peter’s confession of Jesus’ identity, which is not revealed “by flesh and blood” but by God (Mt 16.17). Even when God gives grace to insiders, they do not always fully comprehend. Again, Peter is the prime example. After the great confession Peter refuses to accept Jesus’ announcement of his impending death, thus he is described as “Satan” focused on “the things of man” (16.21-23). The difference between insiders and outsiders is their willingness to follow Jesus as divine wisdom exemplified in the cross rather than the wisdom of man.

Jesus used Isaiah’s foreboding commission to describe his own ministry as the revelation of God that separates God’s true people from those that are not. It is interesting that Isaiah’s commission ends with the vague hope that God will preserve a holy seed (Isa 6.13b). This promise, though not cited by Jesus, is fulfilled by him. His ministry divides the true people of God from hypocrites who honor God with their lips but not their lives (Isa 29.13 in Mt 15.8-9). In Matthew’s gospel Jesus is the promised “Immanuel” child (Isa 7.14 in Mt 1.23), the light among darkness (Isa 9.1-2; 42.7 in Mt 4.14-16), and the anointed “servant” (Isa 42.1-3 in Mt 12.17-21) who heals (Isa 53.4 in Mt 8.17). The gospel writers faithfully appropriate Isaiah 6, but place Jesus as the center of its eschatological fulfillment. Matthew intentionally describes Jesus as the hope of Israel. Just as in Isaiah, the reason why people reject Jesus is the refusal of an unrepentant people to recognize God’s revelation.

The Messiah Born in Bethlehem

Micah 5.2 in Matthew 2.6

Matthew puts a messianic prophecy from Micah on the lips of Jerusalem's leaders to describe the origin of Jesus' birth.

Micah 5.1‒3		Matthew 2.5‒6
MT (BHS)	LXX	NT (UBS4)
[1] And you, Bethlehem of Ephrathah to be small among the thousand of Judah, from you to me will come the one to be ruling in Israel, and those of his going out from old from ancient days. [2] Therefore he will give them until the time the one giving birth gives birth and a remnant of his brothers will return to the sons of Israel. [3] And he will stand and shepherd in the strength of Yahweh in the exaltation of the name of the Yahweh his God, and they will remain from now and he will increase unto the ends of the earth.	[1] And you, Bethlehem house of Ephrathah, you are smallest to be among thousand of Judah, from you to me will come the one to be a ruler in Israel, and those of his exodus beginning from ancient days. [2] On account of this He will give them until the time the one giving birth will give birth, and the rest of their brothers will turn to the sons of Israel. [3] And he will stand and see and shepherd his sheep in the strength of the Lord, and they will be in the glory of the name of the Lord their God, now therefore he will increase unto the ends of the earth.	[5] And they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written through the prophet, [6] "And you Bethlehem, land of Judah, you are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; For from you a leading one will come Who will shepherd my people Israel"

Textual Issues:

The MT and the LXX agree substantially. The LXX even maintains the word order of the MT "from you to me" (ἐκ σοῦ μοι for מִמְּךָ֙ לִ֣י) and the Greek grammar mirrors Hebrew forms (lih^eyōt with tou einai). What is odd about this quotation is that while the MT and LXX agree the Matthew deviates significantly. These differences lead Gleason Archer and Gregory Chirichigno to categorize this passage as one that "give[s] the impression that unwarranted liberties were taken with the Old Testament text in the light of its context" (xxviii). There are four features of the quotation from Matthew that are different from the MT/LXX. The following treatment of the textual issues is based on the order of the MT/LXX as compared with Matthew.

First, Matthew's phrase "land of Judah" (gē Jouda) is not paralleled in either the MT or the LXX. Obviously, in the context of Matthew's gospel, the location is very important (cf. Jn 7.42). Still, the designation Ephrathah is probably a description of the location of Bethlehem and so this is not a surprising change. This is not the Bethlehem of the north (Josh 19.15) but Bethlehem of Judah, the city of David's origin (Judg 17.7; Ruth 1.2). While Matthew clearly deviates from the text of Micah not supported by any textual evidence, the change is fitting for the purpose of the quotation and does not create significant tension in the meaning of the text. It may, in fact, be a paraphrase intended to update the place name.

Second, Matthew emphatically negates the insignificance of Bethlehem with the adverb "by no means" oudamōs which contrasts sharply alongside the MT and LXX. In the MT and LXX the insignificance of Bethlehem is noted as an irony in light of the fact that a Davidic ruler will come from the city (cf. 1 Sam 16.1, 18; 17.12; Jn 7.42). Matthew leaves out the irony to observe the significance of Bethlehem ‒ a city that only seems insignificant. Matthew uses litotes to describe the significance of this small village for the birth of the Messiah subverting the expectation of Micah.

Third, Matthew has the plural noun "leaders" (hēgemosin) instead of "thousands" (MT ḅ^e'al^ephî LXX chiliasin) represented in the MT and LXX. This is explainable by the fact that "thousand" can refer to a company of soldiers (Judg 6.15; 1 Sam 10.19, 21; cf. Exod 18.21, 25; 1 Sam 8.12). Several times in other places the LXX translates "thousand" with hēgemōn (Gen 36.15; Ex 15.1; 1 Chron 1.50; Ps 54.14). Here, again, Matthew is translating the text in a way that makes sense rather than keeping the exact form of the MT or LXX.

Fourth, according to Micah the prophet comes forth "to me" i.e. Yahweh. In Matthew there is no mention of the Messiah coming to Yahweh. In fact, later Jesus will be portrayed as Yahweh coming (Isa 40.3 in Mt 3.3). The dative pronoun is odd even in the MT. In light of this oddity, Robert Shedinger suggests that this is an instance where the NT can shed light on a text-critical problem in the OT (article on pages 114‒125). Shedinger points out that Tatian's Diatessaron reads "king" basileus instead of "leading one" hēgoumenos. Since the Diatessaron was
originally in Syriac (though today no known Syriac manuscripts are still in existence), this might suggest closer linguistic connections to the Hebrew text and confirm Joseph Fitzmeyer's suggestion that the "to" lî is odd enough to merit a second look. The second look would seem to suggest haplography. Haplography is an occurrence of scribal error where a scribes eyes skip over letters accidently by finding the same letters further along in the sentence or the word. An English example would be writing the word "endontic" instead of "endodontic." In Micah, then, the scribe's eye would have skipped from the kap of "from you" ממך to the kap of "king" מלך thus leaving out "king^. Furthermore, the lî is read as a result of dittography. Dittography is the opposite scribal error of haplography where a word or syllable is accidentally doubled. The resultant emended reading, then, would be "from you a king will come" ממך מלך ליצא. Shedinger's suggestion is interesting, but is likely not the best textual handing of Matthew. Why appeal to a later document like the Diatessaron? A simpler and I think more likely explanation is that in Matthew's context of quotation it would be odd to read the scripture as though Yahweh were speaking. So the preposition is eliminated. This is, in my mind, a minor variation. In regard to the textual issue in Micah, I think Fitzmeyer's suggestion is quite likely but using the Diatessaron to support his argument is not the best heuristic tool.

Fifth, in Micah 5.2 there is no mention of the promised ruler shepherding. In the MT and LXX the promised ruler is one who "leads out" from ancient times. The allusion to shepherding shows similarities to the declaration that David is the shepherd-leader of Israel (2 Sam 5.2; 1 Chron 11.2). Micah is obviously intending to link this coming ruler with David, so a mention of shepherding is certainly in order but it does not appear in Micah 5.2. If the context of Micah is taken into account, however, it becomes clear that the quotation is condensing Micah 5.2‒4. In v 4[3], the promised ruler is described as "shepherding his sheep in the strength of the Lord" (again the MT and LXX have substantial agreement, though the LXX does add "and he will see" [καὶ ὄψεται]). So, Matthew is not inventing or even importing the shepherding theme from elsewhere, but widening his interpretive net. This makes sense when one considers that quotations were looser than contemporary standards and that versification did not exist.

Context in Micah:

Micah prophesied before the fall of Samaria in 722 bc (1.2‒7) as well as the reigns of Ahaz (735‒715) and Hezekiah (715‒687). Micah is also connected with the reign of Jotham (742‒735) in Micah 1.1. Micah's prophetic ministry coincided with Isaiah's ministry as well (Isa 7; 20; 36‒39; cf. 2 Kgs 15.32‒20.21; 2 Chron 27‒32). There is debate about the literary unity of the book which presupposes both the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles (1.8‒16; 2.12‒13; 4.10; 7.7‒20). By the time of Jeremiah, however, Micah is appealed to as a prophetic example vindicating Jeremiah's message of judgment (Jer 26.17‒19). This connection would seem to imply an earlier date around the time of Israel's exile by the Assyrians.

Regardless of the specific date or historical context, which is debatable, Micah is obviously structured by three cycles of judgment (Mic 1.2-2.11; 3.1ff.; 6.1-7.7) followed by salvation oracles (2.12-13; 4.1-5.1ff.; 7.8-20). Micah 5.2‒15 occurs as the latter half of a salvation oracle that describes the full establishment and restoration of Zion. In these verses, Micah promises a ruler in the line of David who will shepherd the people of God and establish peace. The peace this Davidic ruler ushers in will eliminate Assyria (Mic 5.5‒6), gather the remnant of Jacob into a strong nation (Mic 5.7‒9) and purify Israel (Mic 5.10‒15).

The most pertinent question is, of course, who is the promised ruler? There is no indication the text that this figure is anyone but a future ruler that is not named. All subsequent ancient Jewish interpreters consider this future ruler to be the messiah. The Qumran community, for example, cites Micah 4.13 in a blessing given to the messianic warrior king (1QSb 5.25) and connects this figure with other "messianic" passages from Isaiah 11 and Numbers 24.17. According to another Jewish group in the first century, then, in a description of the Messiah's overwhelming power, Micah 4.13‒5.9 fits nicely. Exactly what Micah meant is difficult to pinpoint. It is hard to imagine that Micah had in mind a particular king. Instead, he was drawing on the figure of a kingly idea‒ an ideal he hoped Yahweh would bring about at some point in the future.

Context in Matthew:

After the birth of Jesus, Magi come to visit the newborn king. Their celestial gazing led them to believe that a king had been born in Judea so they went to logical place where a king would be born‒the palace in Jerusalem (Mt 2.1‒2). Unfortunately, the tyrannical ruler Herod the Great had other plans (Mt 2.12 foreshadowed in 2.3). In his attempt to get rid of the newborn Herod thought he could employ the unsuspecting travelers from the East. So, he summoned the Israelite leaders and inquired about the location of the promised Messiah's birth. The response of these priests and scribes was "Bethlehem." Apparently it was widely accepted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem because that was where David was born (cf. Tg. Mic. 5.1‒3).

Despite some interesting textual differences this is a fairly simple and straightforward use of the OT. The passage in Micah predicts a messianic ruler in the line of David and the leaders in Jerusalem can easily produce this passage as a prediction of his birthplace. Still, there is more than initially meets the eye. Matthew has slipped into language echoing 2 Samuel 5.2 and Genesis 49.10 to emphasize that Jesus is the promised Messiah. These allusive similarities lead Homer Heater to conclude that Matthew is engaged in "cumulative exegesis"‒ bringing together these three texts to identify Jesus as the promised Messiah in the line of David. Others have since suggested that the category of "cumulative exegesis" does not account for the textual divergences in Matthew's citation. It is difficult to know exactly which texts Matthew had in mind, and he certainly would have believed Genesis 49.10 and 2 Samuel 5.2 referred to Jesus, but it is difficult to show that those potential allusions or echoes were in Matthew's mind. It is important to point out, however, that the prophetic interpretation of these scribes is confirmed by divine direction with a star. The star likely appears as a common Messianic symbol (Num 24.17; cf. T. Jud. 24.1–6; CD 7.20; 1QSb 5.27–28; 1QM 11.4–9; 4Q175 1.9–13; cf. Philos Vit. Mos. 1.52 §290). Suffice it to say, Matthew has put a clear messianic prophecy on the lips of the Jerusalem elite in such a way that points to the identity of Jesus as the promised Davidic ruler who would deliver Israel from the Herods of the world.

Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promise for a future anointed king. Unfortunately, while the Jerusalem leaders clearly understood the place of the Messiah's birth, they did not understand the Messiah himself. It is a biting irony that the only people in Matthew's birth narrative to pay Jesus proper honor are Gentiles and those who ought to have recognized him best do not bother to search him out. By placing this prophecy on the lips of the Jerusalem elite Matthew shows them to be skilled exegetes who fail to have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Child of Promise and Child of Judgment

In an effort to further articulate how the New Testament authors use the OT, I'll be highlighting a number of examples from different New Testament authors. The format I'm using is a comparative chart followed by commentary. In the far left column I've placed my translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). In the middle column I've placed the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the OT abbreviated by the Latin numerals for "seventy" (LXX) based on a legend about the seventy translators who produced it. It is widely recognized the LXX was the Bible of the early Church and my comparisons will show the NT authors often follow the LXX, though in many cases they seem aware of the MT. There are lots of questions surrounding the textual issues of how the NT uses the OT, but my goal is primarily interpretive. In the far right column I've placed my translation of the NT text. I include the quotation formulas (i.e. "to fulfill what was said" or "as it is written") because I think they are often part of how the NT writers want to use the OT text.

After the comparative chart I've placed commentary. The commentary breaks down into three parts. In part one I discuss the textual issues. Is the NT writer following the LXX or the MT? How closely? What changes are evident? What might these changes signify? I'll admittedly spend less time on these issues than they deserve, but only because they've been rehearsed by those more capable than me in numerous journal articles commentaries and in the very helpful tool‒ Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. In part two, I'll do a brief overview of the OT passage in its original context. More could be said here as well, but the goal is to get a picture of the main point of the passage not capture every interpretive nuance. In part three, I'll look at what the NT author is doing with the passage. I'll answer what context the NT author is placing the OT passage in and then try to answer what the NT writer seems to be "doing."

My goal is to articulate what a NT writer, in this case Matthew, thought he was doing when he quoted the OT. A question I plan to pursue later his how well his audience would have picked up on his interpretive intentions and how much it matters, but I don't have time for that here. To dive right in I've compared Matthew's use of Isaiah 7.14 in Matthew 2:23 which upon even a surface comparative reading is quite problematic for those who suggest the NT writers are doing historical-grammatical exegesis (i.e. Walter Kaiser Jr.).

Isaiah 7.14; 8.8, 10		Matthew 1.22-23
MT (BHS)	LXX	NT
[7.14] Therefore, the lord himself will give to you a sign‒ Behold, the young woman is pregnant and is giving birth to a son, and you will call his name Immanuel. [8.8] "Immanuel." [8.10] "For God is with us."	[7.14] On account of this the Lord himself will give to you a sign‒ Behold, the virgin will be pregnant and she will bear a son, and you will call his name Immanuel. [8.8] "God is with us." [8.10] "Because the Lord God is with us."	[22] So this all happened in order that the word by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled saying, "Behold the virgin will be pregnant and she will bear a son, and you will call his name Immanuel, Which means, "God with us."

Textual Issues:

Much ink has been spilled over this verse. Textually, there are only a couple of features of significant debate. Matthew follows the Septuagint exactly adding only an interpretive gloss on the name Immanuel, which though often overlooked but indicated in my chart, is clearly drawn from later in Isaiah's prophecy (8.8, 10). Both the LXX and Matthew have two interesting differences from the MT. The first, and most significant, is the translation "virgin" parthenos for "young woman" 'al^emâ. There is a lot of debate about this difference since "young woman" does not necessarily imply virginity but simply a woman of marriageable age. The typical Hebrew word for "virgin" is b^etūlâ. The question is why did the LXX translators use parthenos rather than the Greek word neanis appearing elsewhere as the LXX for the Hebrew 'al^emâ (Exod 2.8; Ps 67.26; Song 1.3; 6.8)? There is nothing in the context of Isaiah that would seem to imply this woman is a virgin, but the LXX translators use parthenos. It should be pointed out that in Genesis 24.43 parthenos translates 'al^emâ and contextually the woman, Rebekah, was in fact a virgin. It is difficult to draw much in the way of a conclusion because of the scarcity of the word 'al^emâ in the OT. Suffice it to say Isaiah did not mean virgin but the LXX translators may have meant "virgin."

The second issue is the aspect of the verb for the birth. The MT text has a Qal participle translated "is giving birth" while the LXX and NT have the future indicative "will give birth." The Hebrew text emphasizes the process is happening where as the Greek places the birth in the future. This is not a drastic difference, but it does seem to imply that the Hebrew is indicating a more immediate fulfillment of Isaiah's words.

Context in Isaiah:

Ahaz, the king of Judah, was terrified to learn that Syria and Israel were mounting an attack against Judah (Isa 7.1‒2). In response, Isaiah was sent to reassure Ahaz to trust that God would not allow these renegade kingdoms to overtake Judah (Isa 7.4‒9). To reassure Ahaz Isaiah said, "Ask for a sign of the Lord your God, let it be as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven" (Isa 7.10). Unfortunately, Ahaz out of fear but in the guise of piety refuses to ask for a sign (cf. Num 14.22; Deut 6.16). In a response of judgment, Ahaz is promised the child "Immanuel" from a young girl (Isa 7.14-17). Before the child is old enough to discern right and wrong, Syria and Israel will be deserted by the power of Assyria. The child, then, would seem to be none other than Maher-shala-hash-baz‒ Isaiah's unborn son (Isa 8.1-3). Or it is possible this is a separate child to be named Immanuel and will serve the same symbolic purpose as the later born child. Either way, this "Immanuel" child is intended to serve as a sign of God's trustworthy presence as well as judgment upon Ahaz who is not established in faith, and thus will not be established at all (7.9). 
Fulfillment of the Immanuel prophecy is tricky. On the one hand, the sign must surely have had a referent that would have made sense as a sign to Ahaz (Isa 7.14, 17ff.; 8.8; 9.1). Yet, it is clear that the gathering of Israel and unprecedented importance is attached to the promised child (Isa 9.1-7; 10.20-23; 11.1-16). John Walton observes three problems with arguing that Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz or even a separate child to serve as a sign to Ahaz. First, Isaiah prompts Ahaz to ask for a remarkable sign, but there is nothing particularly unusual about the birth of a child. Second, the use of the rare Hebrew word "young woman" (occurs only 7x in the OT: Gen 24.43; Exod 2.8; Ps 68.25[26]; Prov 30.19; Song 1.3; 6.8; Isa 7.14), complicated by the LXX translation "virgin" parthenos, suggests that this might be more remarkable than Shear-Jashub or Maher-shalal-hash-baz (7.3; 8.3). Third, the choice of the name Immanuel is lofty and does not seem to fit the specific historical situation like Isaiah's other sons' names. These complications are not convincing to suggest that the child is not Maher-shala-hash-baz, the position that Walton ends up taking.

The judgment theme of the "Immanuel" prophecy is too often overlooked. The overarching context of Isaiah 1‒6 concerns God's judgment on a wayward people. Isaiah 6 especially focuses on Isaiah's role as the prophet who will be ignored and thus proclaim judgment. The phrase "God with us" or its variations can imply protection (Ps 46.7, 11), salvation (Ps 48.8, 12), divine support (2 Sam 7.3), success in battle (2 Chron 13.12; 32.8; Judg 6.13-14), God's military support in taking possession of the land (Num 14.9; 32.32) or Yahweh's presence as a result of repentance and obedience (Amos 5.14; Zeph 3.15). It is Yahweh's presence that sets Israel apart as God's people (Exod 33.16; 1 Kgs 8.57). Still, God's presence does not always serve these positive functions and contextually Isaiah 7:14 would seem to be very antithesis to this support because Ahaz has been neither repentant nor obedient.

There are other indicators that God being with Israel is not just roses and success. The shift from "your God" (Isa 7.10) to "my God" (Isa 7.13) points to an increased distance not a comforting divine presence. There is also a consistent picture in the OT of God's presence among his people meaning judgment. Consider just a few examples: exodus judgment in the wilderness (Num 14, 16), the ark and judgment for unfaithfulness (1 Sam 4.3-5, 10-11, 18, 20-22; cf. Mal 3.11), Isaiah's own experience in the temple implies judgment is a sign of God's presence not his absence (Isa 6.1, 9-12; cf. Mal 3.1-5; 4.1-6). Yahweh's exaltation is a repeated theme in Isa 1‒6 but his exaltation is over proud and disobedient Judah (Isa 2.9-14, 17; 5.11-17; cf. 1.21-26, 28, 31; 3.12-15; 6.1; 12.4). Yahweh's presence as judgment fits with the covenant language of Isaiah, echoing the OT, that highlight's Israel's failure. Violation of the covenant, however, implies that Israel has a unique covenant relationship with Yahweh (cf. Jer 25.29; Ezek 9.6; Amos 3.2). This same theme is carried over into the NT as well (1 Pet 4.17; cf. James 3.1). God being "with Israel" means not only that he loves and protects her but also that she falls under God's judgment first and foremost.

In its original context, Isaiah 7:14 was a prophecy intended to be fulfilled in Isaiah's day with drastic implications for God's people. This child would serve as a symbol of both God's miraculous salvation and his judgment on those who fail to give ear to his words. In spite of Ahaz's failures God would bring salvation from the coalition rising against Judah, but Israel still stood under God's judgment for consistently failing to trust him.

Context in Matthew:

Before Matthew's gospel even gets started it looks as though the purposes of God might be thwarted. Mary, the pregnant virgin, faces shame of divorce from her soon-to-be husband (Mt 1.18‒19). Yet God intervenes through an angel to instruct Joseph to take Mary as his wife because the child is "from the Holy Spirit" (1.20). The angel also instructs Joseph that the child will be named "Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (1.21). Matthew then adds an interpretive gloss from scripture to indicate that the whole ordeal‒ Mary's Immaculate Conception, Joseph's decision for divorce, the visit from the angel and the name Jesus‒is a fulfillment of scripture.

This interpretive gloss is the first of his twelve fulfillment formulas (Mt 1.22-23; cf. 2.15, 17, 23; 4.14-16; 8.17; 12.17-21; 13.35; 21.4; 26.54, 56; 27.9). Ten of these formulas are identified with specific OT texts by Matthew (Mt 1.22-23; 2.15, 17, 23; 4.14-16; 8.17; 12.17-21; 13.35; 21.4; 27.9). Here Matthew simply describes this OT text as "the word of the Lord through the prophet," but Matthew has no problem identifying the specific prophet he is quoting especially when it comes to Isaiah (Mt 4.14-16; 8.17; 12.17-21; cf. 3.3; textual variant in 13.35 as well). Further significance is attached to this formula by making this a word "from God" added to the fulfillment formula only twice (Mt 1.22, 2.15). Both fulfillments summarize angelic appearances in Joseph's dreams. This word from God, via divine messenger (an angel of the Lord) and ancient prophet makes the text especially important. Furthermore, the fact that this quotation is the first of the fulfillment texts suggests that it is programmatic for Matthew.

It is somewhat odd, and not often pointed out, that "Immanuel" is a name, but Jesus has already been given a name. "Jesus" is connected with the Hebrew word yāša meaning "to save" which apparently requires no explanation (cf. Philo Names 121‒122; Note that in Isaiah salvation is connected with the end of exile: Isa 40.2; 43.25; 59.2). "Immanuel," in contrast, requires interpretation‒ "God with us" (1.23b). This interpretation comes not from Isaiah 7:14, but Isaiah 8.8 and 10. Matthew, then, seems to be aware of the broader context of Isaiah 7‒9 and is putting this passage next to the birth narrative to make a theological comparison that will serve a programmatic function in his gospel. Jesus will not only save people from their sins but will serve as a sign of God's judging presence. Rejecting him is tantamount to rejecting Yahweh, but following him brings salvation.

This passage cannot adequately be described as a prophetic fulfillment. Isaiah never intended this verse to refer to the Messiah. No one before Matthew ever connected this text with the Messiah. Matthew is himself not trying to "prove" the virgin birth from scripture because such an argument would have been completely unconvincing to anyone who actually read Isaiah. Instead, Matthew is describing Jesus' identity by using an OT text for the birth of a child who would be a sign of both salvation and judgment.