John Calvin Commentary Matthew 1:22

"Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying," — Matthew 1:22 (ASV)

Now all this was done. It is ignorant and childish quibbling 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 uses the general term all.

We must now see how appropriately the prediction of Isaiah is applied. It is a well-known and remarkable passage (Isaiah 7:14), but perverted by the Jews with their accustomed malice; though the hatred of Christ and of truth, which they thereby reveal, is as blind and foolish as it is wicked.

To such a level of impudence have many of their Rabbis gone 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, and should pour out upon them a spirit of deep sleep and close their eyes (Isaiah 29:10).

Others apply it to a figment of their own imagination, some unknown son of Ahaz, whose birth Isaiah predicted. But with what appropriateness was he called Immanuel, or the land subject to his rule, who lived his life privately 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 misunderstood 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 (Isaiah 8:3). All that is there described is approaching war, accompanied by fearful desolation, which makes it very clear 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 calm 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,
(Isaiah 7:11).

That wicked hypocrite, concealing his unbelief, disdains to ask a sign. The prophet rebukes him sharply, and finally adds:

The Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel,
(Isaiah 7:14).

We explain this as relating to Christ in the following manner: “You, the whole posterity of David, as much as you can, endeavor to nullify the grace which is promised to you” (for the prophet expressly calls them, by way of disgrace, the house of David, Isaiah 7:13); “but your despicable faithlessness 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 commitment. 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 inconsistent with everything like reason or probability if he had given to the men of that age a sign which was not to be shown until after nearly eight hundred years. And then they act haughtily triumphant,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, as long as we remember that a covenant of adoption was given to the Jews, on which the other acts of 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 maintain 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 have perished a hundred times.

Let devout 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 turn immediately 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 remembers His covenant and will rescue this city from its enemies. While He grants no particular sign to bear witness to His grace, this one sign ought to be considered more than sufficient to meet your wishes: from the lineage 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 rebuke, because they did not accept 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, God has 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 sophistical argument 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,
(Isaiah 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 announced, 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, (1 Timothy 3:16), he proceeds to speak, in general terms, of all the children of his own time.

A strong proof of this is readily apparent; 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 near, determines the time by the childhood of those who were recently born, or would be born shortly afterwards.

Until now, if I mistake not, I have refuted, by strong and conclusive arguments, the slanders 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 maliciously attack 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 translation¹⁰⁶ 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 desire to argue, by laboring¹⁰⁷ 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 maid, בעלמה, (Proverbs 30:19). But it does not at all support their views. Solomon speaks there of a young woman who has won the love of a young man: but it does not necessarily follow that the young man has seduced the woman he admires; or rather, the probability leans much more strongly to the other side.¹¹⁰

But even if we concede their point 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,
(Isaiah 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 tenor 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 names were given to children by their mothers, yet it was done by the authority of the fathers.

When the prophet speaks to the virgin, he takes away from men, in respect to this child, that authority which is given to 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 devout—a miracle which is despicably 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.”;” — “setting great store by their argument.”

¹⁰⁴ “Le mot Hebrieu Alma, pour lequel l'Evangeliste a use du mot de Vierge;” — “the Hebrew word ;” — “the Hebrew word Alma, for which the Evangelist has used the word Virgin.”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.”;” — “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.”;” — “deceived by a word ill translated.”

¹⁰⁷ “Urgent;” — “;” — “ils veulent a toute force;” — “they attempt with their whole strength.”;” — “they attempt with their whole strength.”

¹⁰⁸ עלמה is derived from is derived from עלם, , to hide,——a verb not found in Kal, but so frequently in Niphal, (verb not found in Kal, but so frequently in Niphal, (נעלם,) Hiphil, (,) Hiphil, (העלים,) Hithpahel, (,) Hithpahel, (התעלם,) that its meaning is fully ascertained. — ,) 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.”;” — “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.;”— “it is quite otherwise: for there is more probability on the opposite side.