1. How should we as Christians explain Matthew’s quoting Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23?
Matthew 1:23:
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (ESV)
But in Isaiah 7:14
“14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and
(she) will call him Immanuel. (ESV)
Question:
In Isaiah 7:14, it stated that God wanted King Ahaz to ask for any sign to let our LORD to prove to him
that he should not worry about the invasion from Syria (with the united army of the Israel; the northern
kingdom) and to show that our LORD is in control all the time since the invasion will not succeed.
Since King Ahaz really want to have alliance with Egypt, therefore he used an excuse of not “testing” his
God and refused God’s request twice. Then God gave him the sign by himself; the famous verse of Isaiah
7:14 that we all familiar with; the virgin will bear a son and (she will) name him Immanuel.
However, in NEW Testament, Matthew quoted this verse onto Jesus mentioning that Jesus is the
Immanuel and “they” shall call him this title.
Was Matthew not understanding the teaching of Torah thorough enough? Did he make a mistake of
quoting the wrong verse onto Jesus? If not, how should we as Christians explain Matthew’s quoting
Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23?
Let us go back to the circumstance in the period at that time to take a look what was happening.
Isaiah 7 (NIV)
1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of
Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and
his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the
aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field.
4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two
smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of
Remaliah.
5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying,

2. 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel
king over it.”
7 Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:
“‘It will not take place, it will not happen,
8 For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son. If you do not stand
firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.’”
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz,
11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will
you try the patience of my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and
(she) will call him Immanuel.
15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right,
16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two
kings you dread will be laid waste.
17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since
Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”
Verse 9: … “you will not stand at all”: you will not be supported (by Lord); that is the reason to cause the
king “will not stand at all”.
Lord asked king to have faith on HIM, then HE would support him.
Lord asked king to ask any sign from heaven to the deepest; any sign, to show the king that LORD is with
him to strengthen his faith, or to show his faith in LORD on this event.
Why King Azar refused to ask for any sign from LORD? The reason might be that:
If he really asked for a sign and LORD gave to him, then he has to choose to believe LORD instead of
having military alliance with Egypt to against the invasion from the united army of the northern kingdom
and Syria, which is against King Azar’s will.
He chose to believe in his own wisdom instead LORD’s. He chose to trust in himself instead in LORD.

3. In verse 14, in order to show the king that LORD is with the king and also the people of Judah, LORD
HIMSELF offered them a sign: “Immanuel” (GOD is with us). Very important to mention in here is that
the naming of the baby by his mother as “Immanuel” is to show to the people of Judah that GOD was
with them (to support them if they have faith in GOD). The birth of this child and the timeline of this
special child’s growth will tell the time of these two kings’ failure; the kings of the northern kingdom and
Syria.
The most important verse regarding this sign is on verse 17:
LORD will bring in the king of Assyria on you. You will face huge pressure that you never face before
since you separated from Ephraim long time ago. The pressure will be much higher than the one from
the northern kingdom and Syria. What LORD’s plan was to prepare the people of Judah to believe in him
that LORD was with them and to prepare them for the real pressure that LORD will bring onto them later;
the king of Assyria.
Verse 14 DID NOT mention that the city would fall into the hand of the KING of Assyria; just mentioned
that they will face the huge pressure (the army from Assyria). It was the very similar situation that they
were facing against the invasion from the northern kingdom and Syria at that moment.
I personally believed that if the people of Judah chose to have faith in LORD at that time, the invasion
from the king of Assyria would be able to be avoided for the people of Judah.
Did the people of Judah responded LORD’s request positively? Of course not.
Verses 8:6-7:
“6“Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah and rejoices over Rezin and the
son of Remaliah,
7 therefore the Lord is about to bring against (over) them the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates—
the king of Assyria with all his pomp. It will overflow all its channels, run over all its banks”
Since the people of Judah rejected the choice of having faith in HIM, then LORD WOULD NOT BE WITH
THE PEOPLE OF JUDAH ANY MORE.
Several observations which might be worthy to be mentioned in here
(1) The virgin in here means fully developed young girl; DOES NOT HAVE TO BE an “unmarried girl”
as the idea that we normally accepted.
(2) And it is the mother of this baby will name him “Immanuel”.

4. The sign that LORD promised to King Azar and to the people of Judah:
“1 The Lord said to me, “Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-
Baz.”
2 So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me.
3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to
me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
4 For before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the
plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.”
One way to treat these verses in order to have a reasonable explanation regarding “Isaiah’s 2nd
son is
the sign that LORD himself promised to give to King Azar”:
8:2 might mean Isaiah’s second marriage, and the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah were the
witness of his second marriage;
8:3 shows Isaiah married to prophetess (a fully bloomed young virgin) and delivered a boy;
8:4 stated that the LORD HIMSELF named Isaiah’s second son;” Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz”; NOT
“Immanuel”, also not named by the baby’s mother.
Also refer to verse 8:18
”18 Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the
Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion”
From verse 4 and 18 we can see that prophet mentioned in here saying that his two sons were the signs
that Lord gave to the people of Israel. It means that the second son was the sign that God want to give
to the people of Judah as God promised to them.
But why God named the second son of Isaiah by God himself (not by his mother) and named him
differently, “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz”; NOT Immanuel?
After several years waiting for the returning of the people of Judah to HIM, the people of Judah failed
our LORD. Then LORD CANNOT “be with them” anymore. If LORD would not be with them anymore, the
“sign” CANNOT be named “Immanuel”, therefore LORD named the sign “ROBBING” instead. At this time,
LORD already decided to turn against them in Isaiah 8:6-8, also mentioned earlier:
“6“Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah and rejoices over Rezin and the
son of Remaliah,
7 therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates—
the king of Assyria with all his pomp. It will overflow all its channels, run over all its banks

5. 8 and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck.
Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, Immanuel!””
It is because of the rejection of the people of Judah of not responding positively to God’s request even
with a very severe warning showing in 7:17.
Then, who is the “Immanuel”?
Let’s return to Verse 8 and focus on the phrase of Your land (2nd
single in Hebrew) means the land of
Immanuel.
Since God did not name Isaiah’s 2nd
boy “Immanuel” and also prophet’s son cannot be future king, then
what’s “Immanuel’s land”?
More importantly, from verse 9-10
“9 Be broken, you peoples, and be shattered; give ear, all you far countries; strap on your armor and be
shattered; strap on your armor and be shattered.
10 Take counsel together, but it will come to nothing; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with
us.”
“you people” in verse 9 is the people of Judah. Their broken was due to LORD’s will. Then who is “us” at
the end of verse 10? Must be the GOD’s believers; the ones that LORD is with.
The baby Isaiah’s 2nd
son was the sign for the people of Judah, but the promised but still un-delivered
one (at that time) “Immanuel” is for the LORD’s believers.
Let’s jump to verses 9:6-7:
“6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over
his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and
forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.”
(1) Clearly we can see that the Immanuel is the future king that was mentioned in verse 6; his name
shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace from GOD;
NOT Immanuel any more (from GOD) since the real purpose of Jesus’s coming to our world is
“salvation”; not solely “God is with us”.
(2) From Verse 8 “the land of Immanuel” showing that only ONE Immanuel is (will be) there since
Isaiah speaking LORD’s word: YOUR LAND (you: single form). This means that it is the (future)
Immanuel’s land.

6. Comparing to Matthew 1:23:
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (ESV)
(3) In verse 6, “to us” is the reason why Matthew 1:23 saying that “they; LORD’s believers” will call
him Immanuel”
Conclusion:
Let us revisit these verses again:
7:14 ” Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and
will call him Immanuel.”
8:3 “…And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.”
8:6 “Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah … floodwaters of the
Euphrates— the king of Assyria …Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, Immanuel!”
9:6 “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Comparing to Matthew 1:23:
“23 Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (ESV)
It is reasonable to assume that Matthew understood the book of Isaiah very well and realized that God
did not gave the name of “Immanuel” to Isaiah’s 2nd
son since King Azar did not respond positively to
God’s request and the people of Judah also turned away against God’s will and more importantly,
GOD COULD NOT NAME this boy “Immanuel” since GOD was not with the people of Judah any more
at that time. That is why GOD gave them into the hand of the king of Assyria.
But this land (of Zion) is still called “your land” (the land of Immanuel). Then this Immanuel must mean
the future child that “the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”; the Messiah.
This is why Matthew said that “they (LORD’s believers) shall call him “Immanuel”” different from Isaiah
7:14 recorded. And also, the purpose of Jesus’s coming to the world is for “salvation; the meaning of
Jesus”, not only limited to “God is with us; the meaning of Immanuel”.
Then we will know that “land of Immanuel” means the Throne of David, and the son is given is “the
Immanuel “, the Messiah.