The following excerpts are taken from Messianic Jewish scholar and translator Dr. David H. Stern’s Jewish New Testament Commentary, published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc. 1992. All emphasis mine.
20 Adonai, literally, “my lords”; but grammarians consider it the “plural of majesty”; so a slightly less literal translation would be “my Lord.” Long before Yeshua’s day, however, the word “Adonai” had, out of respect, been substituted in speaking and in reading aloud for God’s personal name, the four Hebrew letters yud-heh-vav-heh, variously written in English as “YHVH,” “Yahweh” and “Jehovah.” The Talmud (Pesachim 50a) made it a requirement not to pronounce the Tetragrammaton (the word means the “four-letter name” of God), and this remains the rule in most modern Jewish settings. In deference to this tradition (which, in my view, is unnecessary but harmless) the JNT uses “Adonai” where “YHVH” is meant. (Incidentally, the name “Jehovah” is a modern invention, an English hybrid based on the four Hebrew letters as transliterated into German, J-H-V-H, with the individually transliterated Hebrew vowel-points of “Adonai,” e-o-a.)
The Greek word here is “kurios” which can mean (1) “sir,” (2) “lord” in the human sense, as in “lord of the manor,” (3) “Lord” in the divine sense, or (4) God’s personal name YHVH. The JNT uses “Adonai” only when one can be certain that “YHVH” is meant; it is not used if there is doubt. So far, editions of the JNT are conservative on this score; there are probably additional places in the text where “Adonai” could safely be substituted for “Lord.” For more on “kurios” see 7:21&N.
21 This verse is an example of a “semitism” (an allusion to Hebrew or Aramaic) brought over literally into the Greek text. It provides strong evidence in favor of the theory that there was a Hebrew or Aramaic oral or written tradition behind the extant Greek manuscripts, for only in Hebrew or Aramaic does the explanation here of Yeshua’s name make any sense; in Greek (or English) it explains nothing.
The Hebrew word for “he will save” is “yoshia‘,” which has the same Hebrew root (yud-shin-’ayin) as the name Yeshua (yud-shin-vav-’ayin). Thus the Messiah’s name is explained on the basis of what he will do. Etymologically the name Yeshua‘ is a contraction of the Hebrew name Y’hoshua‘ (English “Joshua”), which means “YHVH saves.” It is also the masculine form of the Hebrew word “yeshu‘ah” which means “salvation.”
The KJV renders this verse, “…and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.” But in English, saving people from sins is no more reason for calling someone Jesus than for calling him Bill or Frank. The Greek is no better; only in Hebrew or Aramaic does the explanation explain.
In modern Hebrew Yeshua is usually called Yeshu (yud-shin-vav, without an ‘ayin) by nonbelievers. This verse also shows why the name “Yeshu” cannot possibly be correct — it does not include all three letters of the Hebrew root of yoshia‘. However, the matter bears further scrutiny.
According to Professors David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai, Orthodox Jews, “Yeshu” was how the name “Yeshua‘” was pronounced by Galilean Jews in the first century. We know from 26:73 below that Jews of the Galil had a different dialect than those of Judea. According to Flusser (Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, p. 15) Galileans did not pronounce the Hebrew letter ‘ayin at the end of a word, much as Cockneys drop “h” at the beginning. That is, instead of saying “Ye-shoo-ah” they said “Yehshoo.” Undoubtedly some people began spelling the name according to this pronunciation.
However, that is not the end of the story. In Jewish anti-Christian polemic it became customary not to use Yeshua’s correct name but intentionally and consciously to use the distortion “Yeshu,” because at some point someone realized that “Yeshu” is also an acronym consisting of the first letters of the Hebrew insult, “Yimach sh’mo v’zikhro” (“May his name and memory be blotted out”; the words adapt and expand the last phrase of Psalm 109:13). Thus “Yeshu” was a kind of coded incantation against Christian evangelism. Moreover, since Yeshua came to be regarded in nonMessianic Judaism as a false prophet, blasphemer and idolater wrongly being worshipped as God, and since the Torah says, “You shall not even pronounce the names of their gods” (Exodus 3:13 [sic]), the Messiah’s name was purposely mispronounced. Today most Israelis saying “Yeshu” suppose this is the man’s correct name and intend no disparagement. The JNT avoids “Yeshu” because of its history and also because in Hebrew it, like “Jesus” in English, carries the valence of “the god the Gentiles worship.”
But Yosef Vaktor (see 10:37N) reinterprets the acronym to praise Yeshua, “Yitgadal sh’mo umalkhutol” (“May his name and kingdom be magnified!”)
22 To fulfill what Adonai had said through the prophet. The New Covenant consistently presents itself as fulfilling prophecies and promises made by God in the Tanakh. Such conformity to statements and predictions made hundreds of years earlier, in defiance of all reasonable probabilities, proves beyond reasonable doubt that God “knows the end from the beginning.” Moreover, in this case, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that Yeshua is the Messiah. Prophecy fulfillment is the chief rational reason, based on empirical observation of historical events — that is, based on facts — for Jews and others to accept Yeshua as the Messiah.
There have been more than fifty messianic pretenders in the last two thousand years of Jewish history, starting with Todah (Theudas) and Judah HaG’lili (Ac 5:36–37&NN), continuing with Shim’on Bar-Kosiba (died 135 C.E.), whom Rabbi Akiva recognized as the Messiah by changing his name to “Bar-Kochva” (“son of a star”; see 2 Ke 1:19N on “the Morning Star”), and culminating in Shabtai Tzvi (1626–1676), who became a Moslem, and Jacob Frank (1726–1791), who became a Roman Catholic. But none of them met the criteria laid down in the Tanakh concerning the identity of the Messiah; whereas Yeshua met all of them that are applicable to his first coming (these fulfilled prophecies are listed in 26:24N and in Section VII of the Introduction to the JNT). Of the four gospel writers Mattityahu especially concerns himself with pointing out these fulfillments (see 2:5, 15, 17; 3:3; 4:14; 8:17; 11:10; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 22:43; 26:31; 27:9). His object is to demonstrate that Yeshua should be recognized as the Messiah because he fulfilled what Adonai said about the Messiah through the prophets of the Tanakh.
What Adonai had said through the prophet. On this phrase see 2:15N, third-from-last paragraph.
23 The virgin will conceive and bear a son. This verse introduces a major controversy concerning the use of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament. Following are three objections which non-Messianic Jews and other skeptics often make to Mattityahu’s quoting Isaiah 7:14b in this verse, along with Messianic Jewish replies.
(1) Objection: A virgin birth is impossible.
Reply: In liberal scholarship miracles are characteristically explained away as natural phenomena in disguise. One might pursue this line here by pointing to observed instances of parthenogenesis in the animal kingdom or modern cloning experiments. But there is no instance of human parthenogenesis. Therefore one must regard a virgin birth as supernatural.
Usually objection to a virgin birth as impossible follows as a logical consequence of objecting to any and all supernaturalism. But the God of the Bible is literally “supernatural,” above nature, since he created nature and its laws. Therefore, if it suits his purpose he can suspend those laws. The Bible in both the Tanakh and the New Testament teaches repeatedly that God does intervene in human history and does sometimes overrule the natural course of events for his own reasons.
Frequently his reason, as in this instance, is to give humanity a sign of his sovereignty, presence and concern. In fact, Isaiah 7:14a, immediately preceding the portion quoted, reads, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.” The Hebrew word for sign (“’ot”) means an extraordinary event that demonstrates and calls attention to God’s direct involvement in human affairs. The “God” of Deism, pictured as starting the universe like a man winding a watch and leaving it to run by itself, is not the God of the Bible.
(2) Objection: Isaiah, in using the Hebrew word “‘almah” was referring to a “young woman”; had he meant “virgin” he would have written “b’tulah.”
Reply: “‘Almah” is used seven times in the Hebrew Bible, and in each instance it either explicitly means a virgin or implies it, because in the Bible “‘almah” always refers to an unmarried woman of good reputation. In Genesis 24:43 it applies to Rebecca, Isaac’s future bride, already spoken of in Genesis 24:16 as a b’tulah. In Exodus 2:8 it describes the infant Moshe’s older sister Miryam, a nine-year-old girl and surely a virgin. (Thus the name of Yeshua’s mother recalls this earlier virgin.) The other references are to young maidens playing on timbrels (Psalm 68:25), maidens being courted (Proverbs 30:19) and virgins of the royal court (Song of Songs 1:3, 6:8). In each case the context requires a young unmarried woman of good reputation, i.e., a virgin.
Moreover, Mattityahu here is quoting from the Septuagint, the first translation of the Tanakh into Greek. More than two centuries before Yeshua was born, the Jewish translators of the Septuagint chose the Greek word “parthenos” to render “‘almah.” “Parthenos” unequivocally means “virgin.” This was long before the New Testament made the matter controversial.
The most famous medieval Jewish Bible commentator, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (“Rashi,” 1040–1105), who determinedly opposed Christological interpretation of the Tanakh, nevertheless explained that in Song of Songs 1:3 “‘alamot” (plural of “‘almah”) means “b ‘tulot” (“virgins”) and refers metaphorically to the nations.
Victor Buksbazen, a Hebrew Christian, in his commentary The Prophet Isaiah, quoted Rashi as writing that in Isaiah 7:14 “‘almah” means “virgin.” In the first four editions of the Jewish New Testament Commentary I cited this Rashi. It has been pointed out to me that Rashi did not write what I represented him as having written, so I have removed the citation from the main body of the JNTC and herewith apologize for not checking the original source. For more details, see Appendix, p. 929.
Also, in earlier editions, I referred to a 1953 article in the Journal of Bible and Religion, in which the Jewish scholar Cyrus Gordon held that cognate languages support translating “‘almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.” However, Michael Brown, a Messianic Jewish scholar with a Ph.D. in Semitics, informs me that Gordon’s observations were based on an early incorrect reading of a key Ugaritic text. In this case, my error stemmed from unfamiliarity with recent scholarship.
However, the Bible itself shows us how we can know when an ‘almah is a virgin. Rivkah is called an ‘almah at Genesis 24:43, but it can be deduced from Genesis 24:16 (“Neither had any man known her”) that she was a virgin. In the same way, we know that the ‘almah Miryam was a virgin from Lk 1:34, where she asks the angel how she can be pregnant, “since I am a virgin?” A possible reason for Isaiah’s using the word “‘almah” instead of b’tulah is that in Biblical (as opposed to later) Hebrew, “b’tulah” does not always unambiguously mean “virgin,” as we learn from Joel 1:8: “Lament like a b’tulah girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth.” Deuteronomy 22:19 speaks of a woman after her wedding night as a b’tulah.
(3) Objection: In Isaiah the context (vv. 10–17) shows that Isaiah was predicting as a sign to King Achaz that before the ‘almah’s as yet unconceived and unborn child would be old enough to choose good and refuse evil, Syria and the Northern Kingdom would lose their kings, and Assyria would attack Judah. This prophecy was fulfilled in the eighth century B.C.E. Therefore the prophet was not predicting an event some 700 years in the future.
Reply (for which I am grateful to the Jewish believer Arnold Fruchtenbaum): On the contrary, the context, which includes all of Isaiah 7, not just eight verses, shows that the “sign” of v. 14 was not for King Achaz, who is referred to as “you” (singular) in vv. 11 and 16–17, but for the entire “House of David,” mentioned in v. 13, and referred to as “you” (plural) in vv. 13–14.
The sign for Achaz was that before the na‘ar (“child,” at least a toddler, never a newborn baby) should know how to choose good and refuse evil, the events of vv. 16b–17 would occur. That child was Isaiah’s son Sh’ar-Yashuv (v. 3), who was with him as he prophesied and at whom he was probably pointing, not the son (Hebrew ben) of v. 14. This leaves v. 14 to provide a sign to the whole House of David, including all the descendants of David from that time onward until the prophecy should be fulfilled — which it was by Yeshua’s virgin birth.
Occasionally persons unacquainted with Christian tradition, specifically Roman Catholic tradition, confuse the term “virgin birth” with “immaculate conception.” The virgin birth of Yeshua — his being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit of God in Miryam before she had ever had sexual contact — is accepted by all Bible-believing Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians. The immaculate conception, the Roman Catholic doctrine (first taught by the Church Fathers) that Miryam herself was sinlessly conceived, is not accepted by Protestants because the New Testament makes no mention of it.
Immanu’el is the name given to the Messiah at Isaiah 7:14, 8:8. As Mattityahu himself explains, it means “God is with us” which is how Hebrew immanu El is translated at Isaiah 8:10. However, Yeshua was not known by that name during his life on earth; rather, the name gives a hint (remez; see 2:15N) at who he is by describing him: he is God-with-us. God’s people experience the final fulfillment at Rv 21:3, where in the new heavens and new earth “God-with-them” dwells among them.
In the Tanakh names frequently describe an aspect of the person named. In fact the Tanakh uses several names to refer to the Messiah, including “Shiloh” (Genesis 49:10), “Branch” (Isaiah 11:1), “Sprout” (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15), and the longest, “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:5–6(6–7)). All describe the Messiah, yet he was known by just one name, Yeshua. (Pp. 36-42)
And:
APPENDIX
The following paragraphs, added since the first printing in 1992, are too long for inclusion in the main body of the commentary.
Mattityahu (Matthew) 1:23 (see pp. 6–8). As I said at the top of page 7, I am embarrassed by a mistake uncorrected in the first four editions of this Commentary, in which I misquoted Rashi as having written:
“‘Behold, the ‘almah shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanu’el.’ This means that our creator will be with us. And this is the sign: the one who will conceive is a girl (na‘arah) who never in her life has had intercourse with any man. Upon this one shall the Holy Spirit have power.”
What happened is that I relied on the commentary The Prophet Isaiah, written by the Hebrew Christian Victor Buksbazen (The Spearhead Press, Collingswood, NJ, 1971). I assumed that in his remarks on Isaiah 7:14 (page 150) he had given an accurate translation of Rashi’s comment, and that he correctly cited Mikra’ot G’dolot as the source. (Mikra’ot G’dolot is considered the definitive edition of the Masoretic text of the Tanakh; it was published together with a collection of commentaries thereon, Rashi’s among them, by Daniel Bomberg in 1525.)
In fact, the Hebrew text of Rashi as it appears in Mikra’ot G’dolot says something quite different and far less supportive of the case I am making that in Isaiah 7:14 “‘almah” means “virgin.” Following is a literal translation of Rashi’s remarks in Mikra’ot G’dolot.
Isaiah: God gives you (plural) a sign.
Rashi: He gives it to you (plural) by himself upon you against your will. Isaiah: Pregnant. Rashi: In the future she will be like we found with Manoach’s wife, that was spoken to her by the angel and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, and it was written, and he will say to her; here you are pregnant, etc.
Isaiah: The young girl [‘almah].
Rashi: My wife pregnant this year? and it will be the fourth year of King Achaz?
Isaiah: And she will call his name.
Rashi: The Holy Spirit will descend upon her.
Isaiah: Immanu’el.
Rashi: This will be to say that God is with us. And this is the sign that after the na‘arah who will have never prophesied in all her life and with him (the son) will come the Holy Spirit. And that has been said in [Talmud tractate] Sotah, “and he will draw near to the prophetess,” etc. We never find a prophet’s wife is called a prophetess unless she prophesied. And there are some who understand this to be referring to Chizkiyahu (Hezekiah). But this is impossible. After you count the years you will find that Chizkiyahu would have been born nine years before his father’s kingship began. And there are some who interpret this to mean that this is the sign, that she was an ‘almah for whom it was not appropriate that she give birth — or, with Hebrew r’uyah translated differently, the ‘almah was not suited to giving birth, i.e., she was too young.
Contrary to Buksbazen’s citation, Rashi never explicitly says that the na‘arah has never in her life had intercourse with any man (i.e.: is a virgin). Rather, he simply defines the ‘almah as a na‘arah and then says that some interpret this to mean either that it was improper for her to give birth (presumably because she was unmarried, in which case what would be proper is that she would be a virgin) or that she was too young to be physically capable of giving birth (in which case, unless she had been abused, she would be a virgin). I regret misrepresenting Rashi. Nevertheless, even without the Rashi paragraph at the beginning of this note (at the top of page 7 in earlier editions), I believe the overall case I have made on pp. 6–8 for understanding the ‘almah of Isaiah 7:14 as a virgin remains convincing. (A friend says that Rashi did write the paragraph as quoted, but it is not in Mikra’ot G’dolot. However, until someone directs me to a genuine Rashi source for it, the matter remains as I have left it in this Appendix note.) (Pp. 1413-1415)
FURTHER READING
ISAIAH 7:1-16: IMMANUEL HAS COME!
Isaiah 7:14: Of whom does this prophecy speak?
The Virgin has Conceived and God is Now With Us!
Response To Jim Lippard’s The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah
Answering Islam Blog 
There is so much to unpack, will have to re-read.
Regards
Michelle
LikeLike