Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 1:22-23

"Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us." — Matthew 1:22-23 (ASV)

The Evangelist had said before that the mother of God was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit, and he proved this above by the angelic revelation; here he proves this by the prediction of the prophet. From this, he says, All this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet. It should be realized that this small passage can be introduced in two different ways. For Chrysostom favors the view that the angel said all this, and thus introduced the prophecy. The reason is that, so that what he announced might not appear to be a new thing, he immediately wished to show that it was foretold long ago: Who now has done what was to come to pass, (Isaiah 48:3) according to another translation.

Others say, and I believe more correctly, that this phrase, namely, All this was done, and so on, are the words of the Evangelist, for the words of the angel are completed where it is said, For he shall save his people, and so on. The Evangelist introduces those words for three reasons:

1. So that he might show that the Old Testament pertains to Christ: To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him (Acts 10:43).
2. So that they might more easily believe in Christ: For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me (John 5:46).
3. To show the conformity of the Old and New Testaments: Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ (Colossians 2:17).

But, to know what is contained in this prophecy, one needs to understand that the angel announces three things. First he says, That which is conceived in her, and so on; second, She shall bring forth a son; third, You shall call his name Jesus. These are contained in the prophecy in this order. And he proves the first when he says, Behold a virgin; second, And she shall bring forth; and third, And he shall be called.

Therefore, He was of the Holy Spirit, because He was conceived through virginity. And this is what is said in the prophecy, Behold a virgin shall be with child. It shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise, and so on, (Isaiah 35:2). Likewise, A virgin shall be with child, because in giving birth, her virginity was in no way harmed: And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root (Isaiah 11:1). Indeed, Christ is the flower. Therefore, her virginity is in no way harmed.

It follows, And his name shall be called Emmanuel. But the question arises, why does this not agree with the words of the angel, who said, And He shall be called Jesus?

It should be pointed out that this promise was made to the Jews, who were to receive salvation from the coming of Christ. And Jesus is interpreted as ‘Savior,’ which has the same meaning as ‘Emmanuel,’ or God with us. For God is with us in four ways:

• By the assumption of our nature: The Word was made flesh (John 1:14).
• By the conformity of nature, because He is similar to us in all things: In the likeness of men, and habit found as a man (Philippians 2:7).
• By His corporeal presence: Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men .
• And by His spiritual presence: Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world (Matthew 28:20).

Yet, regarding the literal sense, the question is asked: why did the Evangelist not use the same words as the prophet, but instead use the name Jesus?

But it should be pointed out that it was spoken by the same Spirit. Nevertheless, Jerome says the reason the Evangelist spoke thus, She shall be with child, is because he was speaking of what was already accomplished.

Likewise, it is asked why in Isaiah it is said, And he will be called (Isaiah 7:14); but here it is said, And they will call. To this Jerome says that here it is said They will call, because what the angel first called by announcing (Luke 2) afterwards the Apostles called by preaching and magnifying, That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and so on, (Philippians 2:10).

Which being interpreted is, God with us. But it is asked, who added this interpretation of the prophecy, God with us—the prophet or the Evangelist? And it seems that it was not the Evangelist, because this was not needed, since he wrote in Hebrew.

But one reply can be that Emmanuel is a compound name, and so the Evangelist also interpreted it in Hebrew. Or it can be said that the one who first translated the Gospel from Hebrew interpreted it.

And it is to be noted that in the Gloss there are three types of prophecy—namely, of predestination, of foreknowledge, and of threatening—and these differ. For a prophecy is called a foretelling of things that are far off, that is, of future events. Now, certain future events are things that only God does. Certain other things, however, even if God does them, nevertheless happen through us and also through other creatures. And there are certain things that God in no way does, such as evil things.

The foretelling of those things that only God does is called a prophecy of predestination, such as the conception of the Virgin. Therefore, the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, Behold a virgin shall conceive, is a prophecy of predestination. But those things that occur from secondary causes can be considered in two ways. First, insofar as they are in the foreknowledge of God—for example, concerning Lazarus. If someone considered the natural causes, he might say that Lazarus would never rise, and he would be saying a true thing, although, nevertheless, Lazarus was to be brought back to life according to the order of divine foreknowledge.

Therefore, when a prophecy is a prediction according to its being in the divine foreknowledge, it is always fulfilled; but when it is according to the order of inferior causes, it is not always fulfilled, as appears in Isaiah 38:1, when Isaiah said to Hezekiah: Take order with your house, for you shall die, and not live.

But does a prophecy never impose a necessity upon His foreknowledge? And I reply that it does not, because a prophecy is what one might call a sign of the divine foreknowledge, which does not impose a necessity upon the foreknown things, because it considers future events as present. For whatever is done is present to God, because His gaze does not impose a necessity, just as when I see someone sit down. And it is in this way that we understand these prophecies, which are cited in this book.

For it is to be considered that there were three errors. One was that of the Manichaeans, who said that no prophecy concerning Christ is found in the whole Old Testament, and that whatever is cited in the New Testament from the Old Testament is all from a corruption of the text.

Opposed to this is the passage: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separate unto the gospel of God, which he had promised before, by his prophets, and so on, (Romans 1:1). And what may be said of the Jewish prophets is said further on: Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, and so on, (Romans 9:5).

Another error was Theodore’s, who said that none of those passages cited from the Old Testament literally concern Christ, but are adapted to Him. It is as when they cite that saying of Virgil, ‘Remembering he was considering such things, and immovable he persists in his opinions’; for this was adapted to Christ. And then that saying, That it might be fulfilled, ought to be explained thus: it is as if the Evangelist said, ‘And this can be adapted to Christ.’ Opposed to this is Luke 24:44: All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. And if anyone asserts a different literal sense, he is a heretic, and his heresy is condemned.

But because not only the words of the Old Testament, but also the deeds signify something concerning Christ, sometimes certain things are said of certain other things in their literal sense. However, they refer to Christ insofar as they bear the figure of Christ, as concerning Solomon it is said: And he shall rule from sea to sea, and so on, (Psalms 71:8); for this was not fulfilled in him. The third error was that of the Jews.

And it is to be known that the Jews especially object to this passage, because in Hebrew there is not the word “Virgin” but “Alma,” which means ‘a young maiden.’ Therefore, these things are not literally said about Christ, but about Emmanuel, or about some son of Isaiah, according to others.

But Jerome points out, in opposition to these things, that this word cannot be said to refer to the son of Isaiah, as is proved by the fact that he was already born when this was said. Likewise, no famous person can be found to have lived at that time who was called Emmanuel. Again, it is not a sign that a maiden gives birth. Hence, Jerome says that “Alma” is equivocal: it sometimes signifies a period of life, and at other times signifies a girl who has been hidden, and then it means a carefully preserved virgin; and such is its meaning here.

Again, the Jews object that the expression was to be a sign (Isaiah 7:3 and following): two kings would come against Ahaz, and the prophet promised that they would be delivered from these things by the giving of this sign to Ahaz.

But it is to be replied that he gave this sign not only to Ahaz, but also to the house of David, because he says, Hear you, therefore, O house of David. It is as though the prophet were to say: The Lord will help you against this king, because He will do far greater things, for there will not only be a liberation for him, but for the whole world. But let us return to the text itself: Now all this was done.

But it is to be stated in one way, according to Rabanus, that All this was done, and so on, refers to the things done in the past—that the angel appeared to the Virgin, and said these words, All this was done, for the preservation of the Virgin—so that the word that may be taken causatively.

Or it refers to those things that he had foretold, and it can be said that all this was done by means of a prophecy of predestination. Or it can be said that the Evangelist was writing when all was accomplished, and thus he refers to it. Therefore, the word that is taken consequently, because God did not will to take flesh so that the prophecy might be fulfilled (as if the Old Testament were worthier than the New), but the fact that Christ became incarnate happened according to the prophecy.