December 21 - Isaiah 7: 10-16, Matthew 1: 18-25
Fourth Sunday of Advent
December 21, 2025
Williamstown, MA
Scripture:
Isaiah 7:10-16
Matthew 1:18-25
A couple of markers for orientation. Antioch, which today is part of Turkey, during the First century was part of the Syrian province within the Roman Empire. It was a major trading hub and figured prominently in the early Jesus movement following Jesus’ ascension as an alternate center from Jerusalem in Judah. The Jesus movement during the First century was not clearly delineated between the Jesus followers and Judaism, thus my reference to them as Jewish Christians.
Matthew’s gospel was likely written between 80 and 90 CE in Antioch, as opposed to Judah. Antioch, a major Greek speaking metropolis, had a sizeable Jewish population. The Jewish Christian population in Antioch was more liberal than their counterparts from Jerusalem, led by Jesus’ brother, James. For example, the Jewish Christians in Antioch began a circumcision-free mission to the gentiles.
Indirect references in this gospel also indicated that the Antioch church was in a state of transition. This was a second-generation church in that with membership including gentiles; how did it reconcile with its Jewish roots? This gospel, then, sought to synthesize its present with its past. Thus, Matthew, the writer, who was not Matthew the disciple, inserted allusions to Hebrew scripture to legitimate this Jesus movement in Judaism. Notably, Matthew began this gospel with Jesus’ genealogy starting with Abraham. Other allusions included the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt of which Matthew wrote 2:15, “Out of Egypt I have called my son,” a quote from Hosea 11:1. Another allusion to Rachel weeping for her children, 2:17-18, came right out of Jeremiah 31:15.
For today, the allusion is 1:23, “’Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him, Emmanuel,’ which means ‘God with us.’” Matthew drew this from Isaiah 7:14, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”
Granted a virgin and a young woman are not necessarily the same. However, Matthew, although drawing upon Isaiah, used the Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture known as the Septuagint, which translated young woman (almah) as virgin.
This chapter from Isaiah addressed the situation following the death of King Uzziah, a beloved and powerful king of Judah. Shortly after Uzziah’s death, his son, Ahaz, succeeded him. His rule was ineffective. Jerusalem came under assault by King Rezin and King Pekah. The prophet, then, urged resistance. However, Ahaz dithered. Seeking to encourage and support him, Isaiah prophesized, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.” (7:13-14)
Understood with this context, Isaiah intended his prophecy to strengthen Ahaz’s resistance to the assault. A savior would arise among them.
However, from a Christian perspective, this prophecy pointed to Jesus’ coming because Matthew alluded to it in his rendering of the annunciation. It has been predominantly accepted by longstanding tradition.
Personally, I’ve had a problem with this connection for a long time. Though I’ve preached the annunciation story several times over the years, I’ve avoided taking this on.
By accepting Isaiah’s prophecy as pointing to the birth of Jesus, it diminishes Judaism’s integrity. It could be considered anti-Judaism, which could become something known as super secessionism, meaning that Christianity replaced Judaism. It would also ignore that Isaiah wrote this for Ahaz, 750 years before Jesus’ birth.
My research, though, revealed several theories about this relationship between Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. Of course, one theory was the fulfillment that Jesus would be born of Mary. Another was a double fulfillment, a child who would grow to save Jerusalem from assault would be born to a young woman and that Jesus would be born of the virgin, Mary. Then, there were theories which did not accept Isaiah’s prophecy in any way as fulfillment in Jesus. No single theory, however, was definitive, which was typical for Biblical scholarship.
A close reading of Isaiah coupled with the development and context of Matthew, I am comfortable rejecting the notion that Isaiah prophesized Jesus’ birth, including the double fulfillment theory.
Matthew drew upon several Hebrew scriptures for his gospel to appeal and legitimize Jesus as Israel’s savior. He wrote his gospel following Jesus’ death and resurrection, which was something entirely out of the ordinary and needing an explanation. At the time of this writing, the religious community in First century Palestine was in flux. The Second Temple was destroyed, and the Jewish diaspora was underway. The Jesus movement affiliated with Matthew, attracted Jews and gentiles and spread across the Mediterranean basin. He kept them together by referencing Hebrew scripture while telling stories of Jesus. This gospel sought to make clear that the Jesus movement grounded in Judaism was an appropriate religious community in which to make a home following the destruction of Judaism’s religious center.
I have a second theory for Matthew’s reference to Isaiah 7:14. Just as Jerusalem was under assault by Rezin and Pekah and needed to be freed, Israel was under the Roman Empire’s oppression during Matthew’s time. Jesus, the Messiah, would be Israel’s liberator just as Isaiah desired for Judeh 750 years before.
In one sense asserting that Isaiah 7:14 intended to prophesy the fulfillment of the Messiah as Jesus seems like a minor issue. After all, it was and remains an interpretation held by Christians for centuries and into today. People who hold this view may have some discomfort linking it together in this manner with Matthew 1:23, but may likely avoid thinking too hard about it or, like me, avoid it.
However, believing Isaiah 7:14 was a fulfillment prophecy in Jesus diminishes Judaism, making it less of a religion to stand on its own. Without restraint, it risks anti-Judaism or worse, antisemitism, particularly among conservative Christians who believe the Bible to be inerrant and that the Hebrew scriptures all point to fulfillment in Jesus.
This is a caution. Matthew’s gospel handled without thoughtful care can convey a damaging message about Jews. An example. When John the Baptist said to the Pharisees and Sadducees standing on the banks of the Jordan, “You brood of vipers,” (Mat. 3:7) we should not slip into believing he was addressing them as Jews. Rather, John specifically addressed them in their respective roles as Pharisees and Sadducees.
Furthermore, Matthew’s gospel is not the only book which without care could convey an anti-Judaism message. The entire New Testament, which is more appropriately described as the Second Testament, is another example. I’ve heard people say, “I like the New Testament God better than the Old Testament God because the New Testament God is about love and the Old Testament God is about judgement and punishment.” Of course, God is the same God for Jews and Christians; the same God of both testaments.
Nevertheless, anti-Judaism charges weigh heavily upon Matthew’s gospel. As this will be the primary gospel until Advent 2026, let’s read and listen to this gospel critically and be alert to the way we convey it. We may occasionally slip, though I’m confident that among us it won’t be with any malicious intent.
Still, at this time when anti-Semitism is rising, by our attentiveness not to err in a way that diminishes or delegitimizes Judaism, we can be better and stronger allies with our Jewish sisters and brothers.
