Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 1:22
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
22. was done ] Rather, has come to pass. The Evangelist speaks as a contemporary.
that it might be fulfilled ] By this formula the Evangelist recognises in the event described a fulfilment of a type or prophecy. It matters little whether we regard “that” ( ) as (1) final, “in order that,” or (2) by a late use consecutive, “so that,” in other words (1) as marking the conscious intention of the prophet or of God speaking through the prophet, or (2) a reflection of the Evangelist viewing the historical fact in connection with the prophecy and finding in the prophecy an analogy, if not a definite prediction. For in regard to divine action the intention and result are identical, that is, we cannot conceive of any result being unintentional with God.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Now all this was done – The prophecy here quoted is recorded in Isa 7:14. See the notes at that passage. The prophecy was delivered about 740 years before Christ, in the reign of Ahaz, king of Judah. The land of Judea was threatened with an invasion by the united armies of Syria and Israel, under the command of Rezin and Pekah. Ahaz was alarmed, and seems to have contemplated calling in aid from Assyria to defend him. Isaiah was directed, in his consternation, to go to Ahaz, and tell him to ask a sign from God Isa 7:10-11; that is, to look to God rather than to Assyria for aid. This he refused to do. He had not confidence in God, but feared that the land would be overrun by the armies of Syria Mat 1:12, and relied only on the aid which he hoped to receive from Assyria. Isaiah answered that, in these circumstances, the Lord would himself give a sign, or a pledge, that the land should be delivered. The sign was, that a virgin should have a son, and that before that son would arrive to years of discretion, the land would be forsaken by these hostile kings. The prophecy was therefore designed originally to signify to Ahaz that the land would certainly be delivered from its calamities and dangers, and that the deliverance would not be long delayed. The land of Syria and Israel, united now in confederation, would be deprived of both their kings, and thus the land of Judah would be freed from the threatening danger. This appears to be the literal fulfillment of the passage in Isaiah.
Might be fulfilled – It is more difficult to know in what sense this could be said to be fulfilled in the birth of Christ. To understand this, it may be remarked that the word fulfilled is used in the Scriptures and in other writings in many senses, of which the following are some:
1. When a thing is clearly predicted, and comes to pass, as the destruction of Babylon, foretold in Isa 13:19-22; and of Jerusalem, in Matt. 24.
2. When one thing is typified or shadowed forth by another, and when the event occurs, the type is said to be fulfilled. This was the case in regard to the types and sacrifices in the Old Testament, which were fulfilled by the coming of Christ. See Heb. 9.
3. When prophecies of future events are expressed in language more elevated and full than the particular thing, at first denoted, demands. Or, in other words, when the language, though it may express one event, is also so full and rich as appropriately to express other events in similar circumstances and of similar import, they may be said to be fulfilled. Thus, for example, the last chapters of Isaiah, from Isa. 40 onward, foretell the return of the Jews into Babylon, and every circumstance mentioned occurred in their return. But the language is more expanded and sublime than was necessary to express their return. It will also express appropriately a much more important and magnificent deliverance that of the redeemed under the Messiah; and the return of the people of God to him, and the universal spread of the gospel: and therefore it may be said to be fulfilled in the coming of Jesus and the spread of the gospel. So, if there were any other magnificent and glorious events, still, in similar circumstances, and of like character, it might be said also that these prophecies were fulfilled in all of them. The language is so full and rich, and the promises are so grand, that they may appropriately express all these deliverances. This may be the sense in which the prophecy now under consideration may be said to have been fulfilled.
4. Language is said to be fulfilled when, though it was used to express one event, it may be used also to express another. Thus, a fable may be said to be fulfilled when an event occurs similar to the one concerning which it was first spoken. A parable has its fulfillment in all the cases to which it is applicable; and the same remark applies to a proverb, or to a declaration respecting human nature. The statement that there is none that doeth good Psa 14:3 was at first spoken of a particular race of wicked men. Yet it is applicable to others, and in this sense may be said to have been fulfilled. See Rom 3:10. In this use of the word fulfilled, it means, not that the passage was at first intended to apply to this particular thing, but that the words aptly or appropriately express the thing spoken of, and way be applied to it. We may say the same of this which was said of another thing, and thus the words express both, or are fulfilled. The writers of the New Testament seem occasionally to have used the word in this sense.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. By the prophet] ISAIAH is added here by several MSS., versions, and fathers. The prophecy is taken from Isa 7:14.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
By these great acts of Divine Providence, that which was spoken and prophesied of by Isaiah, Isa 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 accomplishment in 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 concern Christ, and none but him. But we must take heed of interpreting the particle that as signifying the end of Gods action in this great work of Providence; for the end for which God sent his Son into the world was before expressed, to save his people from their sins, not to fulfil a prophecy.
That here only signifies the consequent of that act of Divine Providence, and the sense is but only this, By all this which was done, was fulfilled that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, &c. But the Jews have so much clamouring against the application of that text Isa 7:14 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 necessary that 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, against their 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, Isa 7:16, Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Supposing those two kings to be Pekah king of Israel and Rezin king of Syria, who were at that time joined in a siege against Jerusalem, or at least preparing for it, and the child mentioned Isa 7:16 to be the son of a virgin promised Isa 7:14, it could be no relief to Ahaz, nor any great news for the prophet to have told Ahaz, that they should both leave the country before eight hundred years were elapsed. Let us therefore first consider the history to which that prophecy related. Isa 7:1,2 we are told, that in the time of Ahaz, Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it. 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 kings house, as we find 2Ki 16:7,8. This conjunction with idolaters was what the Lord had forbidden, and had often declared his abhorrence of. To prevent it, he sends his prophet Isaiah to him: Isa 7:3,4, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the upper pool in the highway of the fullers field; and say unto him, fear not, neither be faint hearted, & c. In short, he assures him in the name of the Lord, that the counsel of these two kings should not stand, nor come to pass, that within threescore and five years Israel should not be a people, &c., Isa 7:7,8. Ahaz knew not how to believe this. Isaiah offereth 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 asked a sign at his command. At this the Lord was angry, as appeareth by the prophets reply, Isa 7:13; And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Then he goeth on, 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 amongst the Jews in their distresses with the promise of the Messias; this we find they often did with reference to the captivity of Babylon, and in other causes of distress 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 defeat the counsel of these two kings; he had refused to ask a sign, for the confirmation of Gods 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 called Emmanuel, and he shall be born of a virgin. Nor yet doth he leave Ahaz and his people comfortless, as to their present distress, for saith he, Isa 7:16, Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The Hebrew is which I think were better translated this child, than the child, for seems not to be a relative, (referring to the child, mentioned in Isa 7:14), but a demonstrative, referring to the son of Isaiah, Shearjashub, whom God, Isa 7:3, 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 God hath 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 possession of it; for at this time Rezin had taken Elath, a city of Judah, 2Ki 16:6; and doubtless he and Pekah had taken divers places, for they were come up to Jerusalem itself. And indeed, if this be not the sense, it is very hard to conceive to what purpose God commanded Isaiah to take Shearjashub with him when he went upon this errand. Isa 7:3. So that Isa 7:14 remains as a prophecy respecting the Messiah only, and given not for any relief of unbelieving Ahaz as to his present distress, but for some relief to Gods people among the Jews, with reference to their posterity. This will appear a much more probable sense than theirs, who think that Mahershalalhashbaz is the son mentioned Isa 7:14, whom we read of Isa 8:3, 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 great wonder 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, and bear a son; so that, according to that notion, we must allow three or four years before Ahaz could have expected relief. This is further advantaged by that passage, Isa 8:18, 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 Gods deliverance of the Jews from those two kings; Mahershalalhashbaz was for a sign of the destruction of the Israelites within five years, and also of Syria, which fell out afterward. Thus Isa 8:14 remains a literal prophecy of Christ. For the Jewish interpretation of it concerning Hezekiah, (born fifteen years after), it is too ridiculous to be mentioned.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22. Now all this was done, that itmight be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet(Isa 7:14).
sayingas follows.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now all this was done,…. These are not the words of the Angel, but of the Evangelist; observing that Mary’s being with child of the Holy Ghost, and her conception in such an extraordinary manner, whilst a pure virgin, before she and Joseph came together, who though espoused to him, was untouched by him, were all brought about in this way, and with such circumstances,
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet; that is, the Prophet Isaiah, and so some copies read. The passage referred to is in Is 7:14 what is there spoken was by divine inspiration; it was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet; the Spirit of the Lord spake by him. Prophets and holy men formerly, spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; so that what they said is to be looked upon as the word of God. Now between the prophecy of Isaiah referred to, and the fact here recorded by the Evangelist, is an entire agreement: the prophecy shows the will, counsel, and determination of God about this matter; the accomplishment of it, the faithfulness and veracity of God in his word; the prediction declares that the thing would be, and the thing itself was done, that what was spoken might be fulfilled; not merely by way of accommodation, or in a typical and mystical, but in a strict, proper and literal sense.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
That it may be fulfilled ( ). Alford says that “it is impossible to interpret in any other sense than in order that.” That was the old notion, but modern grammarians recognize the non-final use of this particle in the Koine and even the consecutive like the Latin ut. Some even argue for a causal use. If the context called for result, one need not hesitate to say so as in Mark 11:28; John 9:36; 1John 1:9; Rev 9:20; Rev 13:13. See discussion in my Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, pp. 997-9. All the same it is purpose here, God’s purpose, Matthew reports the angel as saying, spoken “by (, immediate agent) the Lord through (, intermediate agent) the prophet.”
“All this has happened” ( , present perfect indicative), stands on record as historical fact. But the Virgin Birth of Jesus is not due to this interpretation of Isa 7:14. It is not necessary to maintain (Broadus) that Isaiah himself saw anything more in his prophecy than that a woman then a virgin, would bear a son and that in the course of a few years Ahaz would be delivered from the king of Syria and Israel by the coming of the Assyrians. This historical illustration finds its richest fulfilment in the birth of Jesus from Mary. “Words of themselves are empty. They are useful only as vessels to convey things from mind to mind” (Morison). The Hebrew word for young woman is translated by virgin (), but it is not necessary to conclude that Isaiah himself contemplated the supernatural birth of Jesus. We do not have to say that the idea of the Virgin Birth of Jesus came from Jewish sources. Certainly it did not come from the pagan myths so foreign to this environment, atmosphere and spirit. It is far simpler to admit the supernatural fact than try to explain the invention of the idea as a myth to justify the deification of Jesus. The birth, life, and death of Jesus throw a flood of light on the Old Testament narrative and prophecies for the early Christians. In Matthew and John in particular we often see “that the events of Christ’s life were divinely ordered for the express purpose of fulfilling the Old Testament” (McNeile). See Matt 2:15; Matt 2:23; Matt 4:14-17; Matt 8:17; Matt 12:17-21; Matt 13:25; Matt 21:4; John 12:38; John 13:18; John 19:24; John 19:28; John 19:36.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Through the prophet [] . So the Rev. rightly, instead of by. In quotations from the Old Testament, the writers habitually use the preposition dia (through to denote the instrumentality through which God works or speaks, while they reserve uJpo (by) to express the primary agency of God himself. So here the prophecy in ver. 23 was spoken by the Lord, but was communicated to men through his prophet.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Now all this was done,” (touto de holon gegonen) “Now this whole thing occurred or has happened;” Matthew was moved by the Holy Spirit to record it, as a then finished prophetically fulfilled historical event, attesting, verifying, or certifying the accuracy, truthfulness, or trustworthiness of the Scriptures, Psa 119:160.
2) “That It might be fulfilled,” (hina plerothe) “in order that, so that, or for the Divine purpose that might be fulfilled,” in whole, totally, or fully. This is an oft repeated clause in the New Testament, indicating purpose in fulfillment of a thing afore prophesied by men of God, who spoke the words of God.
3) “Which was spoken of the Lord,” (to hrethen hupo kuriou) “That which was having been rhetorically spoken of and from the Lord,” through His prophet Isaiah, and all, the other prophets, Act 10:43; Rev 19:10. The “testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” of all prophecy.
4) “By the prophet, saying,” (dia tou prophetiu legontis) “Through the mouth and writing of the prophet saying,” the thing following: of this first New Testament prophecy fulfilled, revealing the meaning of the Old Testament prophecy concealed, it may be recognized that “Jesus who was in the Old Testament -concealed, is here in the New Testament revealed,” This is the very first sign by which the teachers, masters of Israel, should have recognized who Jesus was, Joh 20:30-31.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
22. Now all this was done It is ignorant and childish trifling to argue, that the name Jesus is given to the Son of God, because he is called Immanuel For Matthew does not confine this assertion to the single fact of the name, but includes whatever is heavenly and divine in the conception of Christ; and that is the reason why he employs the general term all We must now see how appropriately the prediction of Isaiah is applied. It is a well-known and remarkable passage, (Isa 7:14,) but perverted by the Jews with their accustomed malice; though the hatred of Christ and of truth, which they thus discover, is as blind and foolish as it is wicked. To such a pitch of impudence have many of their Rabbins proceeded, as to explain it in reference to King Hezekiah, who was then about fifteen years of age. And what, I ask, must be their rage for lying, when, in order to prevent the admission of clear light, they invert the order of nature, and shut up a youth in his mother’s womb, that he may be born sixteen years old? But the enemies of Christ deserve that God should strike them with a spirit of giddiness and insensibility, should
“
pour out upon them a spirit of deep sleep and close their eyes,” (Isa 29:10.)
Others apply it to a creature of their own fancy, some unknown son of Ahaz, whose birth Isaiah predicted. But with what propriety was he called Immanuel, or the land subjected to his sway, who closed his life in a private station and without honor? for shortly afterwards the prophet tells us that this child, whoever he was, would be ruler of the land. Equally absurd is the notion that this passage relates to the prophet’s son. On this subject we may remark, that Christian writers have very strangely misapprehended the prediction contained in the next chapter, by applying it to Christ. The prophet there says, that, instructed by a vision, he “went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son,” and that the child whom she bore was named by Divine command, ”Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” “Making speed to the spoil, hasten the prey,” (Isa 8:3.) All that is there described is approaching war, accompanied by fearful desolation; which makes it very manifest that the subjects are totally different.
Let us now, therefore, investigate the true meaning of this passage. The city of Jerusalem is besieged. Ahaz trembles, and is almost dead with terror. The prophet is sent to assure him that God will protect the city. But a simple promise is not sufficient to compose his agitated mind. The prophet is sent to him, saying,
“
Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above,” (Isa 7:11.)
That wicked hypocrite, concealing his unbelief, disdains to ask a sign. The prophet rebukes him sharply, and at length adds,
“
The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,” (Isa 7:14.)
We expound this as relating to Christ in the following manner: “You, the whole posterity of David, as far as lies in your power, endeavor to nullify the grace which is promised to you;” (for the prophet expressly calls them, by way of disgrace, the house of David, Isa 7:13😉 “but your base infidelity will never prevent the truth of God from proving to be victorious. God promises that the city will be preserved safe and unhurt from its enemies. If his word is not enough, he is ready to give you the confirmation of such a sign as you may demand. You reject both favors, and spurn them from you; but God will remain steady to his engagement. For the promised Redeemer will come, in whom God will show himself to be fully present to his people.”
The Jews reply, that Isaiah would have been at variance with everything like reason or probability, if he had given to the men of that age a sign, which was not to be exhibited till after the lapse of nearly eight hundred years. And then they assume the airs of haughty triumph, (103) as if this objection of the Christians had originated in ignorance or thoughtlessness, and were now forgotten and buried. But the solution, I think, is easy; provided we keep in view that a covenant of adoption was given to the Jews, on which the other acts of the divine kindness depended. There was then a general promise, by which God adopted the children of Abraham as a nation, and on which were founded all the special promises. Again, the foundation of this covenant was the Messiah. Now we hold, that the reason for delivering the city was, that it was the sanctuary of God, and out of it the Redeemer would come. But for this, Jerusalem would a hundred times have perished.
Let pious readers now consider, when the royal family had openly rejected the sign which God had offered to them, if it was not suitable that the prophet should pass all at once to the Messiah, and address them in this manner: “Though this age is unworthy of the deliverance of which God has given me a promise, yet God is mindful of his covenant, and will rescue this city from its enemies. While he grants no particular sign to testify his grace, this one sign ought to be deemed more than sufficient to meet your wishes. from the stock of David the Messiah will arise.” Yet it must be observed that, when the prophet reminds unbelievers of the general covenant, it is a sort of reproof, because they did not accept of a particular sign. I have now, I think, proved that, when the door was shut against every kind of miracle, the prophet made an appropriate transition to Christ, for the purpose of leading unbelievers to reflect, that the only cause of the deliverance was the covenant that had been made with their fathers. And by this remarkable example has God been pleased to testify to all ages, that he followed with uninterrupted kindness the children of Abraham, only because in Christ, and not through their own merits, he had made with them a gracious covenant.
There is another piece of sophistry by which the Jews endeavor to parry our argument. Immediately after the words in question, the prophet adds:
“
Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings,” (Isa 7:16.)
Hence they infer, that the promised birth of the child would be delayed for a very short time; otherwise, it would not agree with the rapidly approaching change of the kingdoms, which, the prophet announeed, would take place before that child should have passed half the period of infancy. I reply, when Isaiah has given a sign of the future Savior, and declared that a child will be born, who is the true Immanuel, or — to use Paul’s language — God manifest in the flesh, (1Ti 3:16,) he proceeds to speak, in general terms, of all the children of his own time. A strong proof of this readily presents itself; for, after having spoken of the general promise of God, he returns to the special promise, which he had been commissioned to declare. The former passage, which relates to a final and complete redemption, describes one particular child, to whom alone belongs the name of God; while the latter passage, which relates to a special benefit then close at hand, determines the time by the childhood of those who were recently born, or would be born shortly afterwards.
Hitherto, if I mistake not, I have refuted, by strong and conclusive arguments, the calumnies of the Jews, by which they endeavor to prevent the glory of Christ from appearing, with resplendent luster, in this prediction. It now remains for us to refute their sophistical reasoning about the Hebrew word עלמה , virgin (104) They wantonly persecute Matthew for proving that Christ was born of a virgin, (105) while the Hebrew noun merely signifies a young woman; and ridicule us for being led astray by the wrong translation (106) of a word, to believe that he was born by the Holy Spirit, of whom the prophet asserts no more than that he would be the son of a young woman. And, first, they display an excessive eagerness for disputation, by laboring (107) to prove that a word, which is uniformly applied in Scripture to virgins, denotes here a young woman who had known a man. The etymology too agrees with Matthew’s translation of the word: for it means hiding, (108) which expresses the modesty that becomes a virgin. (109) They produce a passage from the book of Proverbs, “the way of a man with a maids,” בעלמה, (Pro 30:19.) But it does not at all support their views. Solomon speaks there of a young woman who has obtained the affections of a young man: but it does not follow as a matter of course, that the young man has seduced the object of his regard; or rather, the probability leans much more strongly to the other side. (110)
But granting all that they ask as to the meaning of the word, the subject demonstrates, and compels the acknowledgment, that the prophet is speaking of a miraculous and extraordinary birth. He exclaims that he is bringing a sign from the Lord, and not an ordinary sign, but one superior to every other.
The Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, (Isa 7:14.)
If he were only to say, that a woman would bear a child, how ridiculous would that magnificent preface have been? Thus we see, that the insolence of the Jews exposes not only themselves, but the sacred mysteries of God, to scorn.
Besides, a powerful argument may be drawn from the whole strain of the passage. Behold, a virgin shall conceive Why is no mention made of a man? It is because the prophet draws our attention to something very uncommon. Again, the virgin is commanded to name the child. Thou shalt call his name Immanuel In this respect, also, the prophet expresses something extraordinary: for, though it is frequently related in Scripture, that the names were given to children by their mothers, yet it was done by the authority of the fathers. When the prophet addresses his discourse to the virgin, he takes away from men, in respect to this child, that authority which is conferred upon them by the order of nature. Let this, therefore, be regarded as an established truth, that the prophet here refers to a remarkable miracle of God, and recommends it to the attentive and devout consideration of all the godly, — a miracle which is basely profaned by the Jews, who apply to the ordinary method of conception what is said in reference to the secret power of the Spirit.
(103) “ Faisant grand cas de leur argument;” — “setting great store by their argument.”
(104) “ Le mot Hebrieu Alma, pour lequel l’Evangeliste a use du mot de Vierge;” — “the Hebrew word Alma, for which the Evangelist has used the word Virgin.”
(105) “ Le blamant de ce qu’il pretend prouver Jesus Christ estre nay d’une Vierge;” — “blaming him for offering to prove Jesus Christ to be born of a Virgin.”
(106) “ Abusez par un mot mal tourne;” — “deceived by a word ill translated.”
(107) “ Urgent;” — “ ils veulent a toute force;” — “they attempt with their whole strength.”
(108) עלמה is derived from עלם, to hide, — a verb not found in Kal, but so frequently in Niphal, ( נעלם,) Hiphil, ( העלים,) Hithpahel, ( התעלם,) that its meaning is fully ascertained. — Ed.
(109) “ Car il emporte Retraitte ou Cachette, qui est pour denoter ceste honte honeste qui doit estre es vierges;” — “for it signifies Retreat or Concealment, which serves to denote that becoming shame which ought to be in virgins.”
(110) “ C’est bien autrement: car il y a plus d’apparence au contraire;”— “it is quite otherwise: for there is more probability on the opposite side.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(22) All this was done.The Evangelist pauses in his narrative to introduce his own comment. He saw in what he relates that which answered to the apparent meaning of prophetic words. He could not possibly regard the agreement as a chance coincidence; and, as chance was excluded, there was no alternative but purpose. The prophecy and the event entered both of them into a divine plan.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. Now all this was done All this includes the whole narrative (from Mat 1:18) of the events of the miraculous birth. That it might be fulfilled But did the entire train of events take place in order to fulfil that one prophecy? To obviate so absurd a meaning some learned men have shown that the phrase might be translated: All this was done SO THAT it was fulfilled. But the present translation leads to no absurd result. All these things did transpire, in order, among other and more direct purposes, to the fulfilment of that prophecy, inasmuch as the fulfilment of that prophecy was at the same time the accomplishment of the Incarnation of the Redeemer, and the verification of the divine prediction. Nor is there any predestinarian fatalism in all this. God predicts what he foresees that men will freely do; and then men do freely in turn fulfil what God predicts, and so unconsciously act in order to verify God’s veracity. Moreover there is no fatalism in supposing that God has high plans, which he does with infinite wisdom carry out through the free, unnecessitated, unpredestinated, though foreseen wills of men. Such is his inconceivable wisdom, that he can so place free agents in a free system of probation, that whichever way they freely turn they will but further his great generic plans and verify his foreknowledge. So that it may in a right sense be true that all things are done by free agents, in order to so desirable an end as to fulfil the divine foresight.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Now all this is come about that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,’
Here we have the first prophetic formula, and yet this one shares its uniqueness with one other, for it is only here and in Mat 2:15 that it is said to be ‘spoken by the Lord’. Matthew is very careful in his use of formulae (see introduction), and while he is quoting Isaiah here he does not mention his name. The mention of Isaiah’s name is reserved for a special section of Matthew which is openly based on the fulfilment of Isaianic prophecy (Mat 3:3; Mat 4:14; Mat 8:17; Mat 12:17; Mat 13:14; Mat 15:7) in which is revealed the coming of the Messiah (Mat 4:14) and Servant (Mat 8:17; Mat 12:17), and which is preparing for the revelation and reinterpretation of His Messiahship in Mat 16:16; Mat 16:21, His revelation in glory in Mat 17:1-8, and the confirmation of His Redemptive Servanthood in Mat 20:28.
The reason for the emphasis on ‘the Lord’ here and in Mat 2:15 is that what is being described is God’s direct action through His Son. The point is that He Himself is bringing His Son into the world, and in Him He will bring His people out of ‘Egypt’ (Mat 2:15), that is out of the tyranny of darkness and of the world and under His own heavenly Kingship. The word ‘fulfilled’ means ‘fill to the full, bring to completion, bring to its destined end’. It is never to be read in Matthew as though it was just a glib ‘fulfilment of prophecy’. It always means more than that, indicating the bringing about of a greater purpose.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Matthew now adds an explanatory note to show the fulfillment of the Old Testament types and prophecies in the person and work of Christ:
v. 22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
v. 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. It was not an incident that just happened that way which the evangelist records, but an occurrence definitely decided upon and fully planned by the Lord centuries before. For it was He that spoke the prophecy through Isaiah, chapter 7:14. The words as written by the prophet referred to a sign or miracle which the Lord promised King Ahaz in order to assure him that the counsels of the enemies of Israel should not stand, but that the latter should finally be utterly discomfited. In giving this sign, the Lord had in mind the spiritual Israel and its enemies, the deliverance being the redemption wrought by the Messiah. Before the eternal God, the space of seven hundred years is as a watch in the night. This sign was now to be given and the prophecy fulfilled. The virgin, not any virgin, but the one designated and chosen by God, being with child, was now about to bear a son. And they, not only His parents, but men and people that would know Him, especially those that would accept His salvation, would call His name Emmanuel: God with us. In the son of Mary these words were fulfilled, her son is God Himself; in His person the strong God, the almighty Lord, is with us, not according to His condemning justice, but according to His loving-kindness and tender mercies, Isa 9:6; Joh 1:1-14; 1Ti 3:16.
The Virgin Birth
For about eighteen centuries after the ascension of Christ and the founding of the Christian Church the fact of the virgin birth was not called into question and the comforting doctrines drawn there from were universally accepted. Throughout the Christian Church the words of the Apostolic Creed: “Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,” were confessed and believed. But the era of rationalism, of believing only what reason admitted to be true, ushered in a new conception of Bible criticism, and this played havoc with our doctrine. One critic attacked the idea of a supernatural origin of Jesus and tried to find a natural explanation of the event. Another declared that Joseph was the father of Jesus. A third calmly treated the stories of Christ’s nativity as myths. In this manner, the entire Bible account was soon discredited, both the fact of the virgin birth and the doctrine of the necessity of the sinless birth of the Savior being denied. It is stated that the modern world cannot believe in, and therefore has no place for, miracles. This standpoint evidently overthrows the entire Bible and the history of the Church, both of which are replete with miracles. Some have maintained that the virgin birth has no doctrinal significance anyway, not the physical basis of Christ’s existence, but the moral and spiritual character of His personality being involved in redemption. But such statements reveal the fact that they are very well aware of the vital connection between the doctrine of the virgin birth and faith in the divinity of Christ. A third class of critics favors the mythological explanation, declaring that legends and myths have ever sprung up in connection with the development of all religions. Unfortunately the critics themselves disagree, some of them assuming a Hebrew, others a Greek, others an Indian origin of the story. Besides, their examples are poorly chosen, a divine paternity by carnal intercourse being assumed in the majority of cases. And a recent writer has shown all these theories to be untenable and not analogous, besides referring to the fact that the heathen myths in connection with such stories are of an incredibly vile and immoral character, while nothing can equal the simple, chaste, convincing language of the Bible narrative. The final argument of the critics that historical and textual criticism has proved consecutive editing of New Testament stories and the presence of material foreign to essential Gospel sources, revivals the intention they are anxious to put into execution, namely, to destroy the faith of Christians in the truthfulness of the Bible story.
Let us, in combating these attacks, rely upon the weapon which Christ Himself indicated to us, namely: “It is written. ” It is plainly written, Isa 7:14, that the Messiah should be born of a virgin, for the Hebrew word there used, both according to its etymology and according to usage, designates not merely a “woman of marriageable age,” but a virgin, a maiden that has not known man. Dr. Stoeckhardt has proved this meaning even in the passage Pro 30:18 The virgin birth is most decidedly taught in the passage above, Mat 1:20-25, as well as in Luk 1:34-35. It agrees, moreover, with the prophecy, Gen 3:15, where the Seed of the Woman alone is named as the crusher of the Serpent’s head. It finds its final confirmation in the fact that St. Paul refers to it in the most self-evident way, when he speaks of the Son of God as having been made of a woman, Gal 4:4.
In the light of these plain passages we have every reason to say: “Therefore these learned men and critics are the falsifiers, visionaries, and writers of legends, not the apostles and evangelists. Their historic-critical research is plain fraud. From the view-point of their unbelief, indeed, they cannot do otherwise. Theirs is the experience of the Jews: With seeing eyes they see nothing, and with hearing ears they hear nothing, and they have their reward. The devil thanks them for it.”
We shall retain the doctrine of the virgin birth as a necessary part of our faith. We believe that it is essential for a full appreciation of the supernatural, the divine character of the Savior. “In order to constitute a divine-human personality, the divine Being had to enter into the procreative depths of humanity and select and assume a human nature of His formation and purifying, and unite Himself personally with it. It must be bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, soul of our soul, in order to be organically connected with the human race; but it must be our nature lifted out of itself, separated, purified, transmuted a human nature that, strangely and mysteriously enough, could be ‘tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. ‘” Christ “indeed is become a real, true, natural man, but not conceived and born in sins, as other children of Adam. For that reason His mother had to be a virgin whom no man had touched, in order that He might not he conceived and born under the curse, but without sin, and the devil might have no right or power over Him. Such mercy we celebrate today in order to thank God that He purified our unclean, unholy conception and birth through His holy conception and birth, took the curse from us, and brought the blessing upon us. We by nature have a filthy, sinful conception and birth, but Christ has a pure, holy conception and birth, and through His holy conception and birth our unclean nature, flesh, and blood are blessed and sanctified. ” The fact of the sinless humanity of Christ, guaranteed to us by the virgin birth, made His being placed under the Law, His perfect fulfillment of the Law, and thus His entire work of redemption possible.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 1:22. Now all this was done, &c. In all this, what was spoken by the prophet was verified. Campbell. The original words found as if the prophesy was the cause of the event predicted; but, generally speaking, things do not come to pass because they are foretold, but are foretold because they certainly will come to pass. The difficulty here lies in the particle that, put for the Greek , which does not always signify the cause, but sometimes the event or consequence. The Evangelists so often use it in this latter sense, that there will be frequent occasion to have recourse to it; and therefore the reader will do well to bear this remark in mind. It may be proper just to observe, that the phrase, it might be fulfilled, and the like, were frequentlydesigned and understood to mean no more than that something answered alike in both cases. There was an aptness or suitableness in the cause, the parts, or circumstances, of one event to the other. Even to this day the Jews in their comments say, That is it which was spoken; and use the term to fulfil, upon relating a similar fact, and not the same referred to in the prophet which they cite; so that we must not always understand this phrase as applicable to immediate prophesies only. See Wetstein, Hammond, and Heylin.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 1:22-23 . No longer the words of the angel (in answer to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Paulus, Arnoldi), but of the evangelist , who continues his historical narrative, and that with a pragmatic observation, which serves to advance his object. Comp. Mat 21:4 , Mat 26:56
is never : so that (Kuinoel and older interpreters), but always : in order that; it presupposes here that what was done stood in the connection of purpose with the O. T. declaration, and consequently in the connection of the divine necessity, as an actual fact, by which the prophecy was destined to be fulfilled. The divine decree, expressed in the latter, must be accomplished, and to that end, this , namely, which is related from Mat 1:18 onwards, came to pass , and that according to the whole of its contents ( ). The prophecy itself is Isa 7:14 according to the LXX., without any essential variation.
corresponds here to , which denotes an unmarried young woman of nubile years, not also a young woman (for which Pro 30:19 is erroneously appealed to by Gesenius and Knobel). See Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 53 ff. On the other hand, means virgin in the strict sense of the word. The evangelist, nevertheless, interpreting the passage according to its Messianic destination, understands the pregnant Mary as a real virgin. Here we have to observe that such interpretations of O. T. passages are not to be referred to any principle of accommodation to the views of the time, nor even to a mere occasional application, but express the typical reference, and therewith the prophetic meaning, which the N. T. writers actually recognised in the relative passages of the O. T. And in so doing, the nearest, i.e. the historical meaning of these passages in and of itself, did not rule the interpretation, but the concrete Messianic contents according to their historical definiteness a posteriori from their actual fulfilment yielded themselves to them as that which the Spirit of God in the prophecies had had in view as the ideal theocratic subject-matter of the forms which they assumed in the history of the time. Comp. Riehm in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1869, p. 272 f. [E. T., Clark, Edin. 1876, p. 160 ff.]. The act by which they saw them Messianically fulfilled, i.e. their Messianic contents become an accomplished fact, was recognised by them as lying in the purpose of God, when the declaration in question was spoken or written, and therefore as “eventum non modo talem, qui propter veritatem divinam non potuerit non subsequi ineunte N. T.,” Bengel. This Messianic method of understanding the O. T. in the New, which they adopted, had its justification not merely in the historically necessary connection in which the N. T. writers stood to the popular method of viewing the O. T. in their day, and to its typological freedom of exposition, but as it had its justification also generally in the truth that the idea of the Messiah pervades the whole of the prophecies of the O. T., and is historically realized in Christ; so also, in particular, in the holy guidance of the Spirit, under which they, especially the apostles, were able to recognise, both as a whole as well as in details, the relation of prophecy to its N. T. fulfilment, and consequently the preformations of Christian facts and doctrines, as God, in conformity with His plan of salvation, had caused them to take a beginning in the O. T., although this result was marked by varying degrees of certainty and of clearness of typological tact among the individual writers. Although, according to this view, the N. T. declarations regarding the fulfilment of prophecies are to be presupposed as generally having accuracy and truth on their side, nevertheless the possibility of erroneous and untenable applications in individual instances, in accordance with the hermeneutical licence of that age, is thereby so little excluded, that an unprejudiced examination upon the basis of the original historical sense is always requisite. This way of estimating those declarations, as it does justice on the one side to their importance and ethical nature, so on the other it erects the necessary barrier against all arbitrary typological hankering, which seeks to find a connection between prophecy and fulfilment, between type and antitype, where the N. T. has not attested the existence of such. Comp. also Dsterdieck, de rei prophet. natura ethica, Gottingen 1852, p. 79 ff. In reference to types and prophecies generally, we must certainly say with the N. T.: . . ., Act 10:43 , but not with the Rabbins: “Omnes prophetae in universum non prophetarunt nisi de diebus Messiae,” Sanhedrin, f. 99, 1. As regards Isa 7:14 , [363] the historical sense is to the effect that the prophet, by his promise of a sign, desires to prevent Ahab from begging the aid of the Assyrians against the confederated Syrians and Ephraimites. The promise itself does not indeed refer directly, by means of an “ideal anticipation,” to Mary and Jesus (Hengstenberg), but neither also to the wife of the prophet (Gesenius, Knobel, Olshausen, Keim, Schenkel, and others; comp. also Tholuck, das A. T. in N. T. p. 43, Exo 6 ), nor to any other mother elsewhere of an ordinary child (Sthelin, H. Schultz), but to the mother who at the time when the prophecy was uttered was still a virgin of the expected theocratic Saviour, i.e. the Messiah , [364] the idea of whom lives in the prophetic consciousness, but has attained its complete historic realization in Jesus Christ. See especially Ewald on Isaiah , p. 339 f., Exo 2 ; Umbreit in the Stud. u. Kritik . 1855, p. 573 ff.; Bertheau in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theologie , 1859, 4; Drechsler on Isaiah, l.c.; Delitzsch; Oehler in Herzog’s Encykl . IX. p. 415; Engelhardt, l.c. That we might, however, from the consideration of the fulfilment of the prophetic oracle, accomplished in the birth of Jesus from a virgin , find in the word the mother of the Messiah designated as a virgin , follows, as a matter of course, from the meaning of , which by no means excludes the idea of virginity, and was not first rendered possible by the of the LXX., by means of the “subtleties of Jewish Christians” (Keim), and this all the less that even also in Greek does not always denote virgin in the strict sense, but also “nuptas et devirginatas.” See Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. p. 210. Matthew might also just as well have made use of , which Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus employ.
On the article , Bengel appropriately remarks: “ex specula divinae praescientiae singularem demonstrandi vim habet;” she who is present to the prophet’s eye is intended.
] they will call . The LXX. incorrectly gives . The evangelist generalizes the third person singular of the original Hebrew into the plural.
] , God is with us , which symbolical name, according to the historical sense in the prophet, derives its significance from the saving by divine help from the destruction threatened by the war in question, but, according to its Messianic fulfilment, which the evangelist now sees beginning, has the same essential meaning as the name Jesus . The corresponds to the . (Mat 1:21 ), and therefore the translator of the Gospel has added the interpretation of the significant name. The Fathers of the church (Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Lactantius), and expositors like Calvin, Flacius, Maldonatus, Jansen, Schegg, interpreted it of the divine nature in Christ. In the divine nature of the Lord as the Son of God is found the divine help and safety , which make up the meaning of the name (Jerome), its dogmatic foundation in the developed Christian consciousness , as the latter is certainly to be assumed in the evangelists Matthew (Mat 1:20 ) and Luke (Luk 1:35 ), according to whom, as a consequence of the superhuman generation, the superhuman character, not merely the Messianic vocation, is to come forth.
[363] Comp. H. Schultz, alttest. Theolog . II. p. 244 ff.; Engelhardt in the Luther. Zeitschrift , 1872, p. 601 ff.
[364] Hofmann has corrected his earlier explanation ( Weissagung und Erfllung , I. p. 221) in point of grammar ( Schriftbeweis , II. I, p. 85), but not in accordance with the meaning. He sees in the son of the virgin mother the Israel which does not arise in the way of a natural continuation of the present, but in a miraculous manner , to which God again turns in mercy. In the person of Jesus this Israel of the future of salvation takes its beginning; while that which in Isaiah was figurative language, is now realized in the proper sense. With greater weight and clearness Kahnis ( Dogmatik , I. p. 345 f.) remarks: The Virgin and Immanuel are definite but ideal persons. The latter is the Israel of the future according to its ideal side; the Virgin, the Israel of the present and of the past according to its ideal side, in accordance with which its vocation is, by virtue of the Spirit of God, to give birth to the holy seed; this Israel will one day come to its true realization in a virgin, who will be the mother of the Messiah. Substantially similar also is the view of W. Schultz in the Stud. u. Kritik . 1861, p. 713 ff., who understands by the Virgin the quiet ones in the land, the better portion of the community who are truly susceptible of the working of the Lord. But the whole style of expression, and the connection in the context farther on, are throughout not of such a character that in the Virgin and her son, ideal , and indeed collective persons, should have been present, first of all, to the prophet’s view. I must continue, even after the objections of Hengstenberg, Tholuck, W. Schultz, H. Schultz, and others, to regard Ewald’s view as the right one.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Ver. 22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled ] An angel’s testimony is not to be taken, if it be beside or against the written word. I am of them that keep the sayings of this book, saith the angel to the apostle, Rev 22:5 ; “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven,” Psa 119:82 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
22. ] It is impossible to interpret in any other sense than in order that. The words . . and the uniform usage of the N.T., in which is never used except in this sense, forbid any other. Nor, if rightly viewed, does the passage require any other. Whatever may have been the partial fulfilment of the prophecy in the time of Ahaz, its reference to a different time, and a higher deliverance, is undeniable: and then, whatever causes contributed to bring about , might be all summed up in the fulfilment of the divine purpose, of which that prophecy was the declaration. The accomplishment of a promise formally made is often alleged as the cause of an action extending wider than the promise, and purposed long before its utterance. And of course these remarks apply to every passage where or are used. Such a construction can have but one meaning. If such meaning involve us in difficulty regarding the prophecy itself, far better leave such difficulty, in so doubtful a matter as the interpretation of prophecy, unsolved, than create one in so simple a matter as the rendering of a phrase whose meaning no indifferent person could doubt.
] The immediate and literal fulfilment of the prophecy seems to be related in Isa 8:1-4 . Yet there the child was not called Emmanuel: but in Mat 1:8 that name is used as applying to one of far greater dignity. Again, Isa 9:6 seems to be a reference to this prophecy, as also Mic 5:3 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 1:22-23 . The prophetic reference . As it is the evangelist’s habit to cite O. T. prophecies in connection with leading incidents in the life of Jesus, it is natural, with most recent interpreters, to regard these words, not as uttered by the angel, but as a comment of the narrator. The ancients, Chry., Theophy., Euthy., etc., adopt the former view, and Weiss-Meyer concurs, while admitting that in expression they reveal the evangelist’s style. In support of this, it might be urged that the suggestion of the prophetic oracle to the mind of Joseph would be an aid to faith. It speaks of a son to be born of a virgin. Why should not Mary be that virgin, and her child that son? In favour of it also is the consideration that on the opposite view the prophetic reference comes in too soon. Why should not the evangelist go on to the end of his story, and then quote the prophetic oracle? Finally, if we assume that in the case of all objective preternatural manifestations, there is an answering subjective psychological state, we must conclude that among the thoughts that were passing through Joseph’s mind at this crisis, one was that in his family experience as a “son of David,” something of great importance for the royal race and for Israel was about to happen. The oracle in question might readily suggest itself as explaining the nature of the coming event. On all these grounds, it seems reasonable to conclude that the evangelist, in this case, means the prophecy to form part of the angelic utterance.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 1:22 . . is to be taken here, and indeed always in such connections, in its strict telic sense. The interest of the evangelist, as of all N. T. writers, in prophecy, was purely religious. For him O. T. oracles had exclusive reference to the events in the life of Jesus by which they were fulfilled. The virgin, , supposed to be present to the eye of the prophet, is the young woman of Nazareth betrothed to Joseph the carpenter, now found to be with child. : in the oracle as here quoted, ( cf. , Mat 1:18 ), is substituted for , and changed into the impersonal . Emmanuel = “with us God,” implying that God’s help will come through the child Jesus. It does not necessarily imply the idea of incarnation.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
all = the whole of.
fulfilled. See App-103for the first fulfillment of prophecy in the N.T.
spoken. Greek. to rhethen. By Isaiah to Ahaz (Isa 7:13-16;), but afterwards written. of = by. Greek. hupo.
by = through, or by means of. Greek. dia. App-104. Mat 1:1.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
22. ] It is impossible to interpret in any other sense than in order that. The words . . and the uniform usage of the N.T., in which is never used except in this sense, forbid any other. Nor, if rightly viewed, does the passage require any other. Whatever may have been the partial fulfilment of the prophecy in the time of Ahaz, its reference to a different time, and a higher deliverance, is undeniable: and then, whatever causes contributed to bring about , might be all summed up in the fulfilment of the divine purpose, of which that prophecy was the declaration. The accomplishment of a promise formally made is often alleged as the cause of an action extending wider than the promise, and purposed long before its utterance. And of course these remarks apply to every passage where or are used. Such a construction can have but one meaning. If such meaning involve us in difficulty regarding the prophecy itself, far better leave such difficulty, in so doubtful a matter as the interpretation of prophecy, unsolved, than create one in so simple a matter as the rendering of a phrase whose meaning no indifferent person could doubt.
] The immediate and literal fulfilment of the prophecy seems to be related in Isa 8:1-4. Yet there the child was not called Emmanuel: but in Mat 1:8 that name is used as applying to one of far greater dignity. Again, Isa 9:6 seems to be a reference to this prophecy, as also Mic 5:3.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 1:22. , , But the whole of this came to pass, that) The same phrase occurs in ch. Mat 26:56. There are many particulars, in which St Matthew observes that the event announced by the angel corresponded exactly with the prediction of Isaiah. (1.) A virgin pregnant and becoming a mother; (2.) A male child (Cf. Rev 12:5); (3.) The Nomenclature of the child; (4.) The Interpretation of the Name.- , that it might be fulfilled) The same phrase occurs in ch. Mat 2:15; Mat 2:17; Mat 2:23, Mat 4:14, Mat 8:17, Mat 12:17, Mat 13:35, Mat 21:4, Mat 27:9; Mat 27:35. Those things have been fulfilled in Jesus, not only which He performed Himself (and which might therefore appear to the unbelieving to be open to suspicion), but those also which were done to Him by others. Wherever this phrase occurs, we are bound to regard and recognise the character and dignity of the Evangelists, and (however dull our own perception may be in the matter) to believe that they mention an event, not merely corresponding [accidentally] with some ancient prophecy, but one which in consequence thereof, and agreement therewith, could not have failed to occur at the commencement of the New Dispensation, on account of the Divine Truth which was pledged to its fulfilment. The evangelists, however, frequently quote prophecies, the context of which must, at the time that they were first delivered, have been interpreted of things then present, and that, too, according to the Divine intention. But the same Divine intention, looking forward to remote futurity, so framed the language of prophecy, that it should apply with still greater specialty to the times of the Messiah. And this hidden intention (some portion of which the learned observe to have oozed out even to the Jews) the apostles and evangelists, themselves divinely taught, teach us: and we are bound to receive their statements concerning the fulfilment of prophecy in a teachable spirit, on account of the correspondence between the predictions which they adduce, and the events to which they apply them. This is enough for the defence of the Evangelists, until any one is led to acknowledge their authority on other grounds. Their sincerity is clearly evidenced by the fact, that they have amplified, as far as possible, the number of prophecies relating to the Messiah, and therefore the labour (delightful indeed!) of proving[61] that Jesus is the Christ. The Jews, on the other hand, endeavour as eagerly to turn aside in any other direction whatever, everything which the prophets have predicted concerning Christ, so that it is wonderful that they still believe that there either is, or ever will be, a Messiah.- , by the prophet) St Matthew quotes the prophets with especial frequency, to show the agreement between the prophecies and the events which fulfilled them: the other Evangelists rather presuppose that agreement.[62]-, saying) This should be construed with (prophet); see ch. Mat 2:17. Isaiah is not mentioned by name. The ancients were studious readers; there was less need, therefore, in those times, to cite books and chapters.
[61] The onus probandi.-ED.
[62] SS. Mark and Luke have at times noted down these prophecies, which our Lord himself quoted; but they have been more sparing of their own spontaneous appeals to the Old Testament, since they were looking forward to readers becoming now continually more and more established in the Christian faith. John, the last of the Four, added one or two prophecies, and their subsequent fulfilment.-Harm., p. 49.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
of the Lord
See Isa 7:14 Lit. by the Lord through the prophet.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
that: Mat 2:15, Mat 2:23, Mat 5:17, Mat 8:17, Mat 12:17, Mat 13:35, Mat 13:21, 1Ki 8:15, 1Ki 8:24, Ezr 1:1, Luk 21:22, Luk 24:44, Joh 10:35, Joh 12:38-40, Joh 15:25, Joh 17:12, Joh 18:9, Joh 19:36, Joh 19:37, Act 3:18, Act 13:27-29, Rev 17:17
Reciprocal: Isa 45:15 – O God Mat 4:14 – it Mat 21:4 – this Mat 27:9 – Jeremy
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:22
Verse 22. The Information was also given Joseph that what was happening was in fulfillment of prophecy, all of which would meet his approval because he was a believer of the inspired word.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 1:22. But all this hath come to pass. An explanation of the Evangelist, who everywhere points to the fulfilment of prophecy.
That, i.e., in order that. The event fulfilled Gods purpose as predicted, and therefore took place. The prophecy depends on the fact as purposed in the Divine mind.
Fulfilled. This word has its usual sense here as applied to prophecy.
By the Lord, who spoke through the Prophet, i.e., Isaiah (Isa 7:14). The writing followed the speaking.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Of all the prophets of the Old Testament, the Prophet Isaiah has the honor to be the first recited in the New. Here the Evangelist quotes his prophecy of Christ’s incarnation, Behold, a virgin shall be with child.
Learn thence, That the great mystery of our Savior’s wonderful incarnation was, (though darkly) revealed to the Church of God under the Old Testament.
Observe further, the name given to our Savior under the Old Testament, Emmanual, that is, God with us; God manifest in our flesh, God appearing in nature; God reconciling man to himself.
O happy and blessed union of two natures in one person! Christ is God and man united, that God and man may be reconciled.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 1:22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled That is, by the doing of all this was fulfilled the following prophecy. For we are not to suppose that the bare accomplishment of an ancient prediction was the end God had in view in sending his Son into the world; which would imply that, if no such prediction had been given, God would not have sent his Son. No: Gods design was the salvation of mankind, and the prophecy was fulfilled, as it were, by the way, without being primarily intended. For the events foretold by the prophets came to pass, not because of the prophecies which predicted them, but the prophecies predicted them because they would come to pass. Thus, in other places, what was merely a consequence of things being done, is represented as the chief end of doing them, as Rom 5:20, The law came in (viz., between Adam and Christ,) that the offence might abound. Certainly God did not give the law with a design to make mens sins abound; but this was the consequence of its being given. For, like a dam placed in the way of a stream, it made the corruption of mankind rise the higher and spread the wider. To this may be added, however, that he who had foretold these things because he had determined to do them, in due time actually did them, that he might show himself true to his word and promise.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 22
By the prophet. (Isaiah 7:14.) This prediction was recorded more than seven centuries before its fulfilment.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
The phrase plerothe to hrethen ("what was spoken . . . fulfilled" [NASB] or "to fulfill what . . . had said" [NIV]) occurs often in Matthew’s Gospel (Mat 2:15; Mat 2:17; Mat 2:23; Mat 4:14; Mat 8:17; Mat 12:17; Mat 13:35; Mat 21:4; Mat 27:9; cf. Mat 26:56). It indicates a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
Matthew worded this verse very carefully. He distinguished the source of the prophecy, God, from the instrument through whom He gave it, the prophet. For Matthew, the prophecy of Isaiah was God’s Word (cf. 2Pe 1:21). The New Testament writers consistently shared this high view of inspiration (cf. 2Ti 3:16).
The prophecy Matthew said Jesus fulfilled comes from Isa 7:14 (Mat 1:23). It is a difficult one to understand. [Note: See Homer A. Kent Jr., "Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):34-43; and Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, pp. 20-21.]
The first problem concerns the meaning of "virgin" (Gr. parthenos). This noun usually refers to a literal virgin in the Greek Bible. [Note: M’Neile, p. 9; Carson, "Matthew," p. 78. ] One exception occurs in Gen 34:3 in the Septuagint. It always has this meaning in the Greek New Testament. That Matthew intended it to mean virgin appears clear for two reasons. First, virgin is the standard meaning of the word and, second, the context supports this meaning (Mat 1:18; Mat 1:20; Mat 1:25).
A second problem is the meaning of the Hebrew word translated "virgin" (’alma) in Isa 7:14. It means an unmarried young woman of marriageable age. Thus the Hebrew word has overtones of virginity. Every use of this word in the Hebrew Old Testament either requires or permits the meaning "virgin" (Gen 24:43; Exo 2:8; Psa 68:25 [26]; Pro 30:19; Son 1:3; Son 6:8; Isa 7:14). [Note: Willis J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise, p. 334, footnote; Toussaint, p. 45. This is a complete list of its occurrences in the Old Testament.] That is why the Septuagint translators rendered ’alma "virgin" in Isa 7:14. Matthew’s interpretation of this word as virgin harmonizes with the Septuagint translators’ understanding.
A third problem is, what did this prophecy mean in Isaiah’s day? At the risk of oversimplification there are three basic solutions to this problem.
First, Isaiah predicted that an unmarried woman of marriageable age at the time of the prophecy would bare a child whom she would name Immanuel. This happened in Isaiah’s day. Jesus fulfilled this prophecy in the sense that a real virgin bore Him, and He was "God with us." This is a typological view, in which the child born in Isaiah’s day was a sign or type (a divinely intended illustration) of the child born in Joseph’s day. I prefer this view. [Note: See also Toussaint, p. 46, and many commentaries on Isaiah.]
A second interpretation sees Isaiah predicting the virgin birth of a boy named Immanuel in his day. A virgin did bear a son named Immanuel in Isaiah’s day, advocates of this view claim. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy since His mother was a virgin when she bore Him, and He was "God with us." This is a double fulfillment view. The problem with it is that it requires two virgin births, one in Isaiah’s day and Jesus’ birth.
A third view is that Isaiah predicted the birth of Jesus exclusively. He meant nothing about any woman in his day giving birth. Jesus alone fulfilled this prophecy. There was no fulfillment in Isaiah’s day. This is a single fulfillment view. The main problem with it is that according to this view Ahaz received no sign but only a prophecy. Signs in Scripture were fairly immediate visible assurances that what God had predicted would indeed happen. [Note: For further discussion, see Carson, "Matthew," pp. 78-80. There are also many books on the subject of the virgin birth. One of the best of these is J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ.]
Some question exists about the sense in which "Immanuel" was Jesus’ name (and the name of a son born in Isaiah’s day) since the New Testament writers never referred to Him as such. There is also no record of a son born in Isaiah’s day of that name. Even though it was not one of Jesus’ proper names, it accurately described who He was (cf. Joh 1:14; Joh 1:18; Mat 28:20). The same may be true of the son born in Isaiah’s day. Some believe this person was one of Isaiah’s sons, or the son of King Ahaz, who could have been King Hezekiah, or someone else. My guess is that Isaiah’s son Maher-shalal-hash-baz was the initial fulfillment and that "Immanuel" may have been his secondary name.
"He [Jesus] is Emmanuel, and as such Jehovah the Saviour, so that in reality both names have the same meaning." [Note: Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew, An Exposition, 1:37.]
"The key passages Mat 1:23 and Mat 28:20 . . . stand in a reciprocal relationship to each other . . . . Strategically located at the beginning and the end of Matthew’s story, these two passages ’enclose’ it. In combination, they reveal the message of Matthew’s story: In the person of Jesus Messiah, his Son, God has drawn near to abide to the end of time with his people, the church, thus inaugurating the eschatological age of salvation." [Note: Kingsbury, pp. 41-42. Italics his.]
The angel’s instructions caused Joseph to change his mind. He decided not to divorce Mary privately but to continue their engagement and eventually consummate it (Mat 1:24). Matthew left no doubt about the virginal conception of Jesus by adding that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after Jesus’ birth (Mat 1:25). [Note: See James P. Sweeney, "Modern and Ancient Controversies over the Virgin Birth of Jesus," Bibliotheca Sacra 160:638 (April-June 2003):142-58.] When Joseph called the child "Jesus," as the angel had commanded him to do (Mat 1:20-21), he was taking Jesus as his son.
"In other words, Jesus, born of Mary but not fathered by Joseph, is legitimately Son of David because Joseph son of David adopts him into his line." [Note: Kingsbury, p. 47.]
Adoption in Israel was informal rather than formal (cf. Gen 15:2; Gen 17:12-13; Gen 48:5; Exo 2:10; 1Ki 11:20; Est 2:7; Luk 2:23).
Was Jesus’ virgin birth theologically necessary, or was it only a fulfillment of prophecy? If parents (specifically fathers) transmit sinfulness to their children in some literal, physical way (i.e., genetically, hereditarily, etc.), the virgin birth was necessary to guard Jesus from transmitted sin. However, there is no clear revelation that fathers pass down their sinfulness as they pass down other characteristics. Theologians debate the subject of whether God imputes sin to every individual at birth or whether our parents pass it on to us (creationism vs. traducianism). My view is that fathers do not pass down sinfulness physically. Human nature is not necessarily sinful, though every human being except Jesus has a sinful human nature that in some way connects to our parents.
In this first chapter the writer stressed the person of Jesus Christ as being both human (Mat 1:1-17) and divine (Mat 1:18-25).
"If Mat 1:1-17 were all that could be said of His birth, He might then have had a legal right to the throne, but He could never have been He who was to redeem and save from sin. But the second half before us shows Him to be truly the long promised One, the One of whom Moses and the prophets spake, to whom all the past manifestations of God in the earth and the types, pointed." [Note: Gaebelein, 1:27.]
Matthew presented three proofs that Jesus was the Christ in chapter 1: His genealogy, His virgin birth, and His fulfillment of prophecy.