Warren Carter (JBL 119/3) examines the intertextual relations between Matthew 1:22-23 and Isaiah 7:14, which Matthew cites (he also discusses Matthew’s citation of Isaiah 8:23-9:1 in 4:15-16). He argues first that Matthew intends to evoke the entire situation of Isaiah 7-9. Matthew does not name the prophet, since his audience was “very familiar with this part of the common tradition,” but he does mention “the prophet,” which brings Isaiah’s situation into view. Matthew has already evoked larger narratives with a brief reference (ie, references to Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “her of Uriah” in the genealogy), and so it’s not uncharacteristic that he would evoke the entire context of Isaiah 7 with a single verse.
Carter states, “The audience is to bring into play Isa 7-9 as it interprets 1:22-23. What happens when it does?”
He briefly summarizes the situation in Isaiah 7-9: Judah is under threat from a Syro-Ephraimite alliance, which the prophet assures him will not overtake Judah. When Ahaz his “pious” but unbelieving reluctance to ask for a sing, the Lord gives a sign anyway, a sign that “the Davidic line will continue,” that “the Syro-Ephraimite imperialism will fail,” and that God will be present with His people to resist “imperial aspirations.”
As Isaiah goes on, however, it becomes clear that the sign is a sign for the rising and falling of some in Judah: Aram and Israel will not conquer Judah, but Assyria will: “God’s presence with Judah will mean not only salvation but destruction.” The name “Immanuel” reappears in Isaiah 8, along with names for Isaiah’s children. Isaiah’s children reassure of Judah’s deliverance but Yahweh also threatens again to send “Assyria to punish unbelieving Judah.” The hopeful promise of a returning “remnant” is also double-edged: For there to be a remnant, many must have been destroyed.
Thematically, then, Isaiah 7-8 “evokes themes of resistance and the refusal to trust God’s saving work, of imperial power as a means of divine punishment, and of God’s saving the people from imperial power.” Matthew’s audience, then, would have been given a series of messages: “The presence of three children, whose names interpret the larger action, focuses attention on the child Jesus’ name and mission as Immanuel. His name is double-edged, promising salvation from imperial power but delivering judgment if God’s action is rejected. This naming is part of the primacy effect, creating an expectation at the Gospel’s outset that he will effect both salvation and judgment. The audience must continue to find out who is saved and who is judged, who welcomes God’s action and who resists it, and how it happens.”
The quotation gives three perspectives on imperial power, Carter suggests: God opposes it; God uses it to punish His people; this punishment will not last forever. In the immediate situation of Matthew and his readers, Israel’s “present under Roman power is punishment for sin as Jerusalem’s fall in 70 C.E. exhibited, but there is hope for its future. God will save God’s people from Roman imperial control.” Whatever the appearances, the text shows that God, not Rome, holds sway: “As with Isaiah’s Immanuel, the child Jesus is a sign of resistance to imperial power.”
A few comments: First, Carter seems exactly right that “Immanuel” is double-edged, and we have an immediate example of those who resist the sign that God gives: Herod is an unbelieving King of the Jews, an Ahaz. Second, the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 does seem to have some direct relevance to the Roman imperial situation, though Carter is far too negative about Roman power in Palestine. Third, the fact that Isaiah 7 is quoted immediately after Jesus is identified as the Savior from sin qualifies the nature of this sign. As NT Wright says frequently, Jesus’ ministry is not apolitical, but it aims to deliver Israel from the enemy behind the human enemy, from Sin and Satan.