03 What Does "Fulfill" Mean in Matthew's Gospel? (Matthew 1:18-25)

Krisan Marotta: Welcome back to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. I'm Krisan Marotta, and this is my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. Today is the third talk in our series on the Gospel of Matthew, and we will be studying Matthew chapter 1, verses 18 through 25. The lecture notes for today's talk are on the link below the podcast. You can also find them on my website, which is wednesdayintheword.com, and then slash Matthew 3. Thanks so much for listening today. Last week we looked at the genealogy of Jesus, and Matthew made the point that Jesus is the Christ. He is that one descendant of Abraham and descendant of David who will fulfill the promises given to them by God. These promised blessings are not just for the children of Israel or the Jews, but they are for the entire world. And Matthew made the point through his genealogy that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, that one descendant of Abraham and David who will bring those promises to fruition. This week we're going to move on and look at the birth of Jesus, and you would think that this would be easy Christmas stuff that we're all familiar with. But don't be fooled. There are some really interesting theological questions in this narrative. First, Matthew tells the circumstances of Jesus' birth a little differently than Luke does. Matthew tells the story primarily from the point of view of Joseph. In Matthew's account, the action centers on Joseph deciding not to break the engagement when he learns Mary is pregnant. After God explains to Joseph who the baby is, Joseph decides to take Mary as his wife. Joseph gives the baby his name, Joseph protects Mary and the baby by taking them to Egypt, and then Joseph brings them back to the land of Israel to live in Galilee. In Matthew's account, it is Joseph's point of view that drives the action. Next, much of what Joseph does is in response to messages from angels that he receives in dreams. Four times in this section, Joseph has a dream that gives him some revelation from God and prompts him to action. Additionally, the magi, the wise men of Babylon, also have a dream from God which prompts them to action. Matthew's critics use these dreams to discount his gospel and say he made the whole thing up, but I don't believe that at all. I think God communicated to Joseph through dreams just as Matthew says, but it is striking that Matthew highlights the role of dreams in his account. And then finally, and perhaps most importantly, four times in this brief account of the infancy of Jesus, Matthew tells us that an Old Testament passage is fulfilled in some way. Again, I don't think this is accidental. Matthew is writing primarily for a Jewish audience. Matthew believes these Old Testament fulfillments are crucial to telling the story, and I think he intends to highlight them. As we go through this passage, we'll see Matthew highlights some revelation that came through a dream to Joseph. Then he comments that this happened to fulfill a word spoken by the Lord in the Old Testament. He deliberately tells the story this way. Now remember, we met Joseph in the genealogy that opened the chapter, which we looked at last week, but Joseph was described differently than every other man in the list. Every other man is described as the father of the next man on the list until we get to Joseph. Joseph is described as the husband of Mary, not as the father of Jesus, and that was Matthew one sixteen, and Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. So Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Joseph is her husband. Jesus is not Joseph's son by blood, but legally Jesus is the son of Joseph, and so he is in the royal line of David through Joseph's side. Now how did this situation come about that Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Christ? That's what Matthew's going to go on to explain. I'm going to read Matthew chapter one verses eighteen through twenty five. Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband, Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which means God with us. When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son, and he called his name Jesus. Matthew jumps right into the action. Mary is betrothed to Joseph. Joseph finds out she's pregnant, but does not yet know that she is pregnant through a miraculous act of God. However, Joseph is righteous and compassionate, so he decides to quietly spare her public humiliation by sending her away secretly. In those days, betrothal or engagement was a much stronger commitment than being engaged today. The engaged couple was considered as good as married. Legally they were married. The only way to break a betrothal was with a divorce. If one of them died during the betrothal period, the other was treated as a widow or a widower and had all the legal rights of a spouse. If Mary had slept with another man during the betrothal period, it would have been considered adultery, and that's what Joseph thinks has happened. Now, of course, we're all curious about the human drama behind all this. How did Mary tell Joseph about the baby in the first place? How did Joseph react? Did she tell him the miraculous circumstances and he just didn't believe her? Was she afraid to tell him for fear of sun and crazy? Or did Joseph find out by accident through a friend or a relative? Matthew doesn't tell us any of that. What he does tell us is that Joseph was prepared to divorce Mary, which would mean by implication he was disowning her child, and that would have made Jesus illegitimate and denied him the legal connection to the line of David that we see in the genealogy. If Joseph had sent Mary away, that genealogy would not have been true. Now Matthew does tell us that Mary is pregnant by the intervention of the Holy Spirit, but at first Joseph doesn't seem to know that. I wonder if perhaps Mary lacked the courage to tell him and perhaps he found out through some other family member, but had not yet talked to Mary directly. The best he can think to do is to save Mary from what he sees as the consequences of her sin and send her away. But God intervenes, and here we see the first of his dreams followed by an Old Testament fulfillment. An angel explains to Joseph what's really going on. Let me read chapter one verses twenty and twenty one again. But as he considered these things, behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. Joseph learns two important things here. First, he learns that Mary's pregnancy is not the result of sin, but it results from a miraculous act of God, as hard as that might have been to believe. She has not been unfaithful to him, she is a godly woman, and Joseph need not be afraid to marry her. And second, he learns that this child will be a uniquely important person. Now it's not clear how much Joseph understood at this point. I suspect he probably realized that the child would be the Messiah, or at least a predecessor of the Messiah. If he was a devout Jew, he would be aware of the promises that God had made to David and to Abraham. And he is described as a son of David. The angel addresses him as Joseph, son of David. And being from David's line, he would have additional reason to be aware of all those promises. They would have been handed down in his family. As we talked about in the last podcast, God promised David that one of David's descendants would sit on his throne forever. But through the sins of the kings and the people, God sent the nation into exile, leaving the throne vacant. And now the people are waiting for that one son of David to come who will bring God's blessing to the world and restore the throne of David. All those who are descendants of David, who are David's heirs, must have thought maybe it's me or maybe it's my son. And I suspect Joseph is no different. He must have had the same thoughts, and now here an angel is telling him this child is miraculously conceived and will save his people from sins. He must have been able to put two and two together. This coming Davidic king was called the anointed one, and the Hebrew word for that is Messiah. Messiah simply means anointed one. The Greek word for Messiah is Christ. Now the angel does not use the word Christ here, nor does he use the word Messiah, but he implies it. The angel refers to Joseph as son of David, so he reminds David right up front that Joseph himself would be eligible to sit on David's throne if it still existed. His Davidic lineage is significant. Why is it significant? Because one of David's heirs, one of his sons, is eligible to fulfill the promise because he is a son of David. Furthermore, this son of Mary was uniquely conceived through the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit, so God clearly has something unique and special in mind for this child. He is the only person in history who has no human father. And if that's not enough, the angel tells Joseph that this child will save his people from their sins. And that is the language of kingship. Jesus will have a people that are his and he will save them. And then the angel tells Joseph to name the child Jesus because Jesus means God saves or God is salvation. Now taking all of that together, I suspect that Joseph must have had some inkling that this child would be the Christ. Look at all the pieces of the puzzle he has. When Joseph adopts Jesus, Jesus is now legally in the Davidic line giving him a right to David's throne. Jesus is supernaturally conceived by an act of God. That also indicates there's something special about this child. A messenger from God predicts that Jesus is a king who will save his people from their sins. So you've got a unique child in the Davidic line who's going to save his people from their sins. Well, who else could that be but the Messiah? Joseph now understands that Mary is a godly woman, her son is uniquely conceived to fulfill the promises of God, and he can marry her without fear, which he does. And that's how the genealogy came to be what it is. Joseph accepts Jesus as his son and Mary as his wife, giving Jesus a legal right to the line of David. The New Testament tells us very little about Joseph as a person, but from this story we can see that he was a godly and obedient man and he had a significant role to play in the story of redemption. Now the angel tells Joseph that Jesus came to save his people from their sins, and as modern Christians we're all very familiar with that kind of language. Of course that's what Jesus came to do. We quote it all the time. But let's stop and think about what Joseph might have thought about that language. If he was familiar with the scriptures, I think he would have been familiar with this concept, because in a way the entire story of humanity is the story of being saved from sins. The story starts with Adam and Eve being kicked out of the garden because of their disobedience to God and the consequences of their sin. And the bulk of the Old Testament is the story of the children of Israel, the people of God, and how their sins robbed them of God's blessings. Not because they were worse than other people, but because God chose them to demonstrate the problem of humanity, the problem of our sin. God showed them great miracles and promised them great blessings, and he proved faithful to his promises over and over again. Yet his people continued to walk away, to disobey him and to turn to other gods. Sin alienated them from God and ultimately led to them losing the blessings that God had promised, and all of us are exactly like them. So if we stop and think about the broad sweep of the Old Testament story, it is a story about the problem and the consequences of sin. And yet the Old Testament is also filled with passages where God promises that one day it's going to be different. God promises that one day He will intervene on behalf of His people, forgive their sins, and remove sin from their hearts. And any due paying attention would see that the Messiah needs to save his people from their sins. Sin is our biggest problem and the thing we human beings most need rescue from. And that's still true today. Anyone who stops and soberly thinks about life comes to the realization I am my own worst enemy. The problems I have in life largely result from me. They result because I am a selfish person. I need to be forgiven. I need to be saved from the tyranny of sin, and that is what God has promised to do for his people through the Messiah, the Christ, and Jesus is the Christ who will bring that about. That's the announcement the angel makes to Joseph. Mary's son is going to be the one who will save his people from their sin. Then Matthew says, let me read twenty two through twenty five again. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which means God with us. When Joseph woke from his sleep he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him. He took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son, and he called his name Jesus. The big question in this passage is what is Matthew doing with this passage from Isaiah? As I mentioned earlier, in this birth narrative, Matthew is going to quote four Old Testament passages, and he introduces each quote in a similar way. Here in 122 he says all this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet. We're going to look in the next podcast at Matthew 215, which is after they flee to Egypt, and Matthew says, This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet out of Egypt I called my son. And then after Herod kills all the Jewish boys under the age of two, in Matthew two, seventeen and eighteen we read this Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah. A voice was heard in Rama, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children. She refused to be comforted because they are no more. And then the last one is in Matthew two twenty three after they returned from Egypt. It reads And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, he shall be called a Nazarene. We're only going to look at the first of these passages today and we'll take each one in turn over the next few podcasts. But each quotation begins with a similar formula. Something like this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet. Now, before I go further, let me just say that many, many books and articles and PhD dissertations have been written on these four fulfillment passages, as they're often called. The debate about them is long and complicated, and different scholars have different ways to explain what Matthew is doing here. I am not claiming that I have all the answers. I am not claiming that the perspective I'm going to give you is the only legitimate perspective. It is my best understanding at this point. So I'm giving you my best shot at sorting out the issues, and as usual, I may have this wrong, but this is my best shot at this point in time. What's the problem? Well, in the first quotation, when you look at Isaiah, which we're going to do in a minute, it sounds like Isaiah is talking about something that happened in his own day and age. It is not at all clear if you just look at Isaiah that this is a prediction which should apply to Jesus. In the second case, the out of Egypt I have called my son, it's very clear that that verse is not a prediction about Jesus. It is just very difficult to put that passage back into the context of Hosea and claim that Hosea meant to talk about Jesus. It is instead a description of how Moses led the people out of Egypt during the Exodus. Then we get to the third quotation about Rachel weeping for her children, and this is also not talking about Jesus, but talking about something that happened during the Babylonian captivity. And then we get to the last quotation, he shall be called the Nazarene, and now we're really in trouble because there isn't a passage in the Old Testament that says this. So what is going on? What does Matthew think he's doing with the Old Testament? Now critics would claim that Matthew is a randomly grabbing language from the Old Testament that contains the language he wants and then he uses that language to make a point, which sadly is something we modern Christians do all the time. Critics also claim that he is making up his own passages when he can't find one that works. And if that were the case, and I don't believe it is, it would be as wrong for Matthew to proof text with these verses out of context as it is for us to do it. And that would raise serious doubts about the trustworthiness of his gospel. I'll tell you right up front, I do not think Matthew was lying, I do not think Matthew was cheating somehow or playing fast and loose with the Bible, and I don't think he had sloppy Bible study methodology. I think his understanding was better than ours, and his understanding was inspired to clarity and truth by the Holy Spirit. Where we fail to see what he's doing, it is our understanding that is lacking and we just need to work harder to figure it out. We have a lot of clues in the text that suggest Matthew knows what he's doing. First, the very number of these passages suggests that Matthew had a plan. If he was going to pull a fast one on us, if he was gonna play fast and loose with the Old Testament scriptures, he would be smarter than to make it so obvious and to put them all together one right after another. In rapid succession, where every reader is bound to notice them. Plus, he's writing to Jews. He's writing to people who know the Old Testament pretty well. Most likely they know it better than we do today, so if he was going to misuse the Old Testament, they would be very likely to catch him. He has to know that it would be easy for the Jews of his day to go back and check a scroll. His readers would know or be able to check the context where these verses appear. It seems much more likely that he's counting on them understanding the context. He expects them to know where these passages came from and to see exactly what he's doing. It's just harder for us because we're separated by time, culture, and language. Now as we study each of these passages, and we're going to look at each one in turn, we're only going to look at the first one today, we're going to see that Matthew uses the word fulfill in a way that is different than we modern readers expect. And many, many scholars and commentators have pointed this usage out before me. Today, most Americans and modern Christians, when we see the word fulfill, we expect it to mean predictive prophecy. That there was an Old Testament passage that predicts some future event. And now here is this future event that was predicted. This event fulfills what was claimed in the Old Testament passage. So the event that was predicted has come to pass. And that would be a typical usage of this word, but it is not the only usage. One usage is God said beforehand X is going to happen, and now X has happened. God predicted it, it came true, the prophecy has been fulfilled. And that's the meaning we assume, but it's not always the case. There is another usage, and this other usage is the one I think Matthew more typically has in mind. And again, lots of people before me have pointed this out. But the other way you see the word fulfilled being used is this way. In the Old Testament, we find themes and pictures, and then we find a fuller expression or more clear expression of that same theme or picture in the New Testament. So we see a spiritual theme or a principle in the Old Testament, and then later in history or in the New Testament, that spiritual principle is shown in its fullness or completeness. We might say it is the epitome or it is the analogous reality. For example, I might say, just as Moses led the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt, God through Jesus leads us out of captivity to sin. There is a sense in which Jesus is the fulfillment of Moses. What Jesus does in his day is similar to what Moses did in his day, but Jesus fills out the picture. He gives a more complete revelation of it. So Jesus' life fills up and fills out the Old Testament passage in some way. So in that usage, I'm not saying that Moses' actions were predictive of Jesus' actions. I'm making an analogous reality, a comparison. What Moses did in his day, Jesus did in his day, even more so. Jesus is the full picture or the epitome of the principle or the moral truth or the theme that you see in the story of Moses. Jesus is the fullest picture of that principle or the culmination of it. And quite often when you see the scripture was fulfilled, they mean this other sense, this sense of the fullest picture, especially in Matthew. Now that means, as good Bible students, when we see Matthew say something is fulfilled, we have a choice to make. We have to decide does Matthew mean predictive prophecy has come to pass, or does Matthew mean this second meaning? Here is an Old Testament principle, our theme, and we see it now at its fullest, most complete expression. We have a fuller expression of it in the coming of Jesus. And quite often I think Matthew means that second usage. Okay, so let's tackle this first fulfillment passage. Why does Matthew quote this passage and which type of fulfillment is it? Again, he says in one twenty-two and twenty-three, all this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which means God with us. Now Matthew is quoting from the prophet Isaiah. But before we even look at Isaiah, we have to answer the question, did Matthew think Isaiah was predicting the virgin birth of Jesus Christ? Or did Matthew think the theme Isaiah was talking about finds its fullest expression in the birth of Jesus? Now there are scholars on both sides of that issue, and you can find books and books and PhD dissertations and scholarly articles devoted to that question. I do not have all the answers. I am not going to get into all the little ins and outs of the debate. I'm going to give you my best understanding at this point, and I have to warn you, my understanding is not exhaustive. I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more, but at this point, from the research I've done and the study I've done, this is how I think it works. This is what I think is going on. So Matthew is referring back to Isaiah 7, and you'll recall that Isaiah is a book that moves back and forth between passages of judgment and passages of hope. Isaiah predicts the exile and he also predicts the return from exile, and he also predicts the new covenant. In chapter seven, Isaiah has been sent to talk to King Ahaz, who was one of David's descendants, and Ahaz is king over the southern kingdom of Judah. Ahaz was a really bad king, and things are not going well for him in this chapter. What's going on here is Assyria is rising in power, and as it does, the northern kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Aram are getting anxious because they're in the path of Assyria's conquests, and so they form an alliance together to try to ward off Assyria, and they come to Ahaz and they try to get him to join their alliance against Assyria. And Isaiah has told Ahaz, don't do it. So the northern kingdom of Israel and Aram decide, well, we're just gonna attack Judah, depose Ahaz, and put someone on the throne who's gonna join our alliance. So to defend himself, Ahaz is considering making an alliance with Assyria, which is a really bad idea. For Ahaz to make an alliance with Assyria is like the chickens making an alliance with the butcher to save them from the fox. This is not a good idea in the long run, and it's not going to end well for the chickens. And this is the point that Isaiah wants Ahaz to understand. Now Isaiah has a son named Shiardashub, and his name means the remnant will return. Isaiah and his son go to King Ahaz, and basically Isaiah tells Ahaz, It is really foolish to trust the Assyrians, rather you should trust in the Lord your God. And through Isaiah, God gives Ahaz this message. He basically says, Would you like to be reassured that I can protect you? Ask me for a sign. This is Isaiah chapter seven verses ten through eleven. Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God, make it deep as Sheol or as high as heaven. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, which is usually the right answer. It is generally speaking not a good idea to say to God, I'm only going to trust you if you prove yourself by doing this miracle that I'm demanding you do. Generally that's what we mean by testing God, and it is usually not a good idea. But in this case, God has specifically told Ahaz to ask for a sign, and Ahaz's refusal is not evidence of faith, rather it is evidence of lack of faith. God told Ahaz to ask, Ahaz refused. Now Ahaz could have repented at this point. He could have said, You're right, Lord, you're the one I should trust. Please show me the sign. He could have thrown himself on the ground and asked for mercy and forgiveness and gratefully acknowledged whatever the sign was that God was going to offer him. He could have gone before the people and called them to repent and trust in God and refused to make any political alliances. And if Ahaz had done that, it's likely God would have blessed him. But Ahaz doesn't do any of that. He refuses to ask for a sign because he doesn't want a sign. He doesn't want to trust God. He wants to make an alliance with Assyria. And if God shows him a sign, how can he ignore it? A sign's gonna make it much harder for him to go ahead with his alliance with Assyria. And turning his back on a sign would be even more egregious and anger God even more. Now from history we know this alliance with Assyria turned out to be a very bad thing for the kingdom of Judah. At this moment in Isaiah's time, things are going to get really bad for the people of Judah, and then they're going to get worse when the exile comes. But one day things are going to get better again. God will bless them and fulfill his covenant blessings and promises. There's one descendant of David who will come and make everything right again. So here we are. Ahaz has refused the sign, Ahaz has not repented, Ahaz has not turned back to the Lord, and this is how Isaiah responds. This is Isaiah chapter seven verses thirteen through seventeen. Then he said, Listen now, O house of David, is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men that you will try the patience of my God as well? Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Emmanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. The Lord will bring on you, on your people and on your father's house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria. In other words, God's going to bring the king of Assyria down on you. Now, as Matthew explains, Emmanuel in Hebrew means God with us. And the idea here is that God has not abandoned us. He is with us. He is saving, he is acting on the behalf of his people. So we have this tension. After this name, God with us, you expect Isaiah to talk about all the wonderful things God's going to do, but God is not in fact going to do those wonderful things for Ahaz. Isaiah goes on to talk about the consequences of Ahaz's unbelief, and he says, in effect, those two kings you're worried about, they're nothing. What you should be worried about is the Assyrians. You think they're going to help you, but they're going to be your worst nightmare. And this is not good news for Ahaz, but it is mixed with this good news about the child. So how do we put all this together? Well, it continues into chapter eight. God tells Isaiah that the Assyrians are going to wipe out the northern kingdom and carry the northern kingdom off into captivity, and Assyria is going to come close to destroying Judah. And in the midst of that statement, Isaiah speaks to other nations and says Don't even think about marking marching into Judah, you aren't going to succeed because God is with us. This is Isaiah chapter eight verses seven through ten. Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them, and that them is the northern kingdom. Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, even the king of Assyria and all his glory, and it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks, then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, it will reach even to the neck, and the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Emmanuel. Be broken, O peoples, and be shattered, and give ear all remote places of the earth. Gird yourselves, yet be shattered, gird yourselves, yet be shattered. Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted. State a proposal, but it will not stand, for God is with us. And that last word, for God is with us, is the word Emmanuel. Essentially he's saying, Judah, God is with you. So instead of Assyria totally destroying you, they are going to almost destroy you. They're going to come right up to the neck, but good news, they're not going to completely destroy you. But then Isaiah reminds them that God's promise to be with them, and that goes much farther than this trouble with Assyria. He reminds them to fear God and wait for him. This is down a little bit more in chapter eight, verse seventeen. And I will wait for the Lord who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob. I will even look eagerly for him. Isaiah goes on to say God is ultimately going to do this great thing for his people, but right now he's hiding his face. But what you need to do is wait eagerly for him. And what is this great thing that we should eagerly wait for? Well we find out in chapter nine. Yes, there is a time of great gloom coming to Israel, especially in the northern kingdom which will be totally destroyed, but that gloom is going to end. This is Isaiah nine chapter nine verses one through seven. But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish. In earlier times he treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on he shall make it glorious by way of the sea on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people who walk in darkness will see a great light. Those who live in a dark land, the light will shine on them. You shall multiply the nation, you shall increase their gladness, they will be glad in your presence as with the gladness of harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil, for you shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian, for every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult and cloak rolled in blood will be for burning, fuel for the fire, for a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on his shoulders, and his name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, eternal father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of his government or of peace on the throne of David or over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness. From then on and forevermore, the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this. This is what Isaiah is waiting for. He's not going to see it in his lifetime. This is how God intends to keep his promise to Abraham and David, this promise that he will be with them. In Galilee, in the north, where there has been such gloom and devastation, a child will be born, and the government will rest on his shoulders. Well what government is that? The throne of David. He's going to establish peace and justice and righteousness forever. And all these names apply to him. This is the wonderful news that all God's people should wait for. This is the most important sense that God is with them. This is their ultimate promise and destiny. So the young woman's son, Emmanuel, God with us, points forward to a time when God is most fully and truly with them, and this is the time when the Messiah, the son of David, sits on his throne and establishes peace and justice and righteousness forever. And his light is going to dawn first in Galilee. God with us implies that God is going to send the Messiah to us. And right there we can see how Matthew can say that the birth of Jesus fulfills this passage. The passage in Isaiah is foreshadowing and pointing to the promise to send the Messiah to redeem his people. Okay, we haven't talked about the virgin shall bear a child. Is that a prediction of Mary and the virgin birth of Jesus or is that a prediction of a child born in the day of Isaiah? Well that's a lot harder question. The word translated virgin, in my opinion, is not conclusive. Some scholars claim the word implied virginity and necessarily means a young virgin. Others claim it simply means a young girl, regardless of whether she's a virgin or not. I think it's too close to call. I don't think there's enough evidence to tip it definitively one way or the other. At least that is my flawed and rather incomplete understanding at this point. I don't think you can say on the word choice alone that this word must mean virgin. It can simply mean a young woman, and she might be a virgin or she might not. It is not clear, at least to me, that Isaiah is saying a virgin shall bear a child. He might simply be saying a young woman will bear a child. Make it even more difficult, we have verse seven hundred sixteen, for before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. That verse makes it sound like this child is going to be born in Ahaz's lifetime. It sounds like this child's birth is an indicator of time for Isaiah. So this child's going to be born, his name will be Emmanuel, and before he's old enough to recognize the difference between good and evil, those two kings whom you dread, the king of the northern kingdom and the king of Aram, they're going to be gone. And that would mean that Isaiah is talking about some other child born to a young woman, and that child is named Emmanuel. Before he reaches a certain age, the two kings Ahaz fears are going to be overthrown. It's hard to know how to make that a prediction of Jesus because by the time that would come about, not only are those two kings gone, but Ahaz is gone as well. Another piece of evidence we have is that Isaiah's children have names that are prophetically important. We've seen one in seven three, the Lord said to Isaiah, Go and meet Ahaz, you and your son Shahir Dashub, and that means the remnant will return. And in eight three we read this, so I approached the prophetess and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Mahir Shalal Hashbaz, for before the boy knows how to cry out my father or my mother, the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria. This child's name means swift is the booty, speedy is the prey, and he is a prophetic message to the people of Isaiah's time, and again he's a time marker. Before he reaches a certain age, the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria are going to be carried away by Assyria. Isaiah says this about his children, this is 818. Behold, I and the children whom I have. The Lord has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts who dwells on Mount Zion. Some scholars have concluded that this child Emmanuel is one of Isaiah's children. Isaiah says he and his children are signs. The child named Emmanuel is called a sign, and one possible explanation is that this child who will be born is another one of Isaiah's children, and he will be named Emmanuel or God with us. Like all of Isaiah's children, his name is meant as a sign to the people of Israel, and like the other children, his age is an indicator of when these events with Assyria will take place. What about the other side of the coin? Can we argue that Isaiah is looking ahead to the time of Jesus? And yes we can. As I said, this debate can get really complicated. I'm only scratching the surface of it. But notice in seven thirteen that Isaiah does not address his comments to Ahaz by name. And then his next remarks, which includes this about the child being born, are spoken to the house of David, which is in the plural. And scholars have argued that Isaiah is now looking past Ahaz to the whole line of kings that will come from David. So remember this is in the plural, so he's basically saying in seven thirteen, is it too slight a thing for all of you, plural, to try the patience of men, that all of you, plural, will try the patience of my God as well. Therefore the Lord himself will give all of you a sign, behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Emmanuel. So this sign of a virgin bearing a child is described as a sign given to the whole house of David, which certainly opens the door to it happening after the lifetime of Ahaz. More significantly, this child has a significant name. That name is God with us, and as we trace that theme through chapters eight and nine, we learn that the way God will be with us is that a child will be born, and that child will be the Messiah, the one to sit on David's throne and establish justice and righteousness forever. So another possible explanation is that the child born to a virgin with a significant name will be the Messiah, and that Isaiah means to predict Jesus. The problem is how to explain 7.16 about before that child reaches a certain age. And there are lots of plausible solutions to that problem. They are too complicated to get into here. You can read about them in the commentaries, but I warn you it requires understanding some tricky Hebrew, and it's just beyond me to explain all that. But just know that there's more to the debate than I'm giving you in this podcast. So here are the options that we have on the table. First, if this child is not a child born in Isaiah's time, if Isaiah is referring and predicting the birth of Jesus as the Messiah, then the connection is fairly straightforward. These two stories, the birth of this child and the birth of Jesus, are not just thematically or theologically similar, they are in fact predictive. Jesus is in fact the child born of the Virgin, and he is truly God with us, and he is assigned to the entire house of David. If the child that Isaiah is talking about is a child born during his time, then Matthew is thinking something like this. A child named Emmanuel will be born to a young woman in Isaiah's day. Perhaps that child was another of Isaiah's sons, we don't know. But the name of that child was assigned to Ahaz and also to all of God's people. The significance of his name is that God will be with his people, and ultimately a child will be born who will be the Messiah, the fullest expression of God being with his people. So Matthew's saying, look at the circumstances of Jesus' birth. Jesus is also from the line of David. His name is also significant, and in his case, his mother was an actual virgin. That word in Isaiah may or may not have signified virginity, but in this case, look, she actually was, and in this case, Jesus' name does not just hint at or point to the coming Messiah. Jesus is the coming Messiah. His name means God saves, and that is not just a message about God. That is a message about Jesus Himself. Jesus is the one who will save God's people from sin and establish peace and justice and righteousness and sit on David's throne forever. In this way, Isaiah's prediction of a young woman who has a child named Emmanuel finds its fullest expression in the story of Mary, an actual virgin who gave birth to a son named Jesus, who actually is God with us. Now, either way you take it, Jesus is the fulfillment of the hope promised in Isaiah. And in either case, the promise centers on a young woman who has a child whose name means God with us. You've been listening to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. My mission is to explain not only what a passage means, but how we figure it out. I encourage you to stop by my website, Wednesdayintheword.com. There are no ads on it, none whatsoever. Instead, it contains a wealth of Bible study materials designed to help you improve your skills and understanding, and it's all free. I don't take any advertising and I don't accept donations. If you want to thank me, please join the mailing list, subscribe to the podcast, leave a positive rating or review wherever you listen to your podcast, and most importantly, tell a friend what you've learned. Our theme music is graciously provided by Reggie Coates of Heartfeltmusic.org. You can find his music and CDs on his website, and I encourage you to go there. You'll be glad you did. If you want to hear more or listen to previous episodes, please go to Wednesdayandtheword.com. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Chris Almirata, and I'll see you next week at Wednesday and the Word.