The interpretation timeline
Matthew 1:23 Douay-Rheims

Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

A.D. 407 – 1871 8 witnesses 10 excerpts

Patristic

before A.D. 750
407
A.D.
John Chrysostom Patristic
A.D. 347–407
“As it is the manner of Scripture to convey a knowledge of events under the form of a name, so here, They shall call His name Emmanuel, means nothing else than, They shall see God among men. Whence he says not, ‘Thou shalt call,’ but, They shall call.”
420
A.D.
Jerome Patristic
c. A.D. 347–420
“(In Is. 7:14.) Since it is introduced in the Prophet by the words, The Lord Himself shall give you a sign, it ought to be something new and wonderful. But if it be, as the Jews will have it, a young woman, or a girl shall bring forth, and not a virgin, what wonder is this, since these are words signifying age and not purity? Indeed the Hebrew word signifying Virgin (Bethula) is not used in this place, but instead the word ‘Halmaa,’ which except the LXX all render ‘girl.’ But the word ‘Halma’ has a twofold meaning; it signifies both ‘girl,’ and ‘hidden;’ therefore ‘Halma’ denotes not only ‘maiden’ or ‘virgin,’ but ‘hidden,’ ‘secret;’ that is, one never exposed to the gaze of men, but kept under close custody by her parents. In the Punic tongue also, which is said to be derived from Hebrew sources, a virgin is properly called ‘Halma.’ In our tongue also ‘Halma’ means holy; and the Hebrews use words of nearly all languages; and as far as my memory will serve me, I do not think I ever met with Halma used of a married woman, but of her that is a virgin, and such that she be not merely a virgin, but in the age of youth; for it is possible for an old woman to be a maid. But this was a virgin in years of youth, or at least a virgin, and not a child too young for marriage.”
Source
“(in Is. 7:14.) The LXX and three others translate, ‘Thou shalt call,’ instead of which we have here, They shall call, which is not so in the Hebrew; for the word ‘Charathib,’ which all render Thou shalt call, may mean, ‘And she shall call,’ that is, The Virgin that shall conceive and shall bear Christ, shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, ‘God with us.’”
Source
“(ubi sup.) What is spoken to Ahaz then is to be thus understood. This Child, that shall be born of a Virgin of the house of David, shall now be called Emmanuel, that is, God with us, because the events (perhaps delivery from the two hostile kings) will make it appear that you have God present with you. But after He shall be called Jesus, that is, Saviour, because He shall save the whole human race. Wonder not, therefore, O house of David, at the newness of this thing, that a Virgin should bring forth a God, seeing He has so great might that though yet to be born after a long while, He delivers you now when you call upon Him.”
Source

Scholastic

c. 1100 – 1500
1256
A.D.
Thomas Aquinas Catholic
1225–1274
“Above, the Evangelist proved that the Mother of God conceived of the Holy Spirit from two things, namely from the revelation of the Angel and from the foretelling of the prophet; he intends to show this same thing from the obedience of Joseph, who would not have acquiesced to the words of the Angel so as to take Mary as his spouse, unless he had known her to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. And concerning this he does two things: first, the obedience of the spouse himself to the Angel is set forth; second, the manner of the obedience is described, there at "and he took." And note that because through the disobedience of the first man we fell into sin — Romans 5:19: "through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners" — therefore at the beginning of our reparation obedience is set forth. And we can note four things which are necessary for obedience. The first is that it be ordered. And I say ordered, because first vices must be abandoned, and afterward one must obey unto the operation of the virtues; Jeremiah 4:3: "Break up your fallow ground, and sow not upon thorns," and so forth. And therefore here it is said that Joseph, rising up from sleep — namely, from the sleep of sloth and of doubt. Concerning this sleep it is said, Ephesians 5:14: "Rise, you who sleep, and arise from the dead." The second, indeed, is that it must be prompt: and this is what is said, Ecclesiasticus 5:8: "Delay not from day to day, be not slow to turn to the Lord; for his wrath will come suddenly." And therefore here it is said that he immediately did as he commanded him. The Gloss: whoever is admonished by God should dissolve delays, rise from sleep, and do what is commanded. The third, indeed, is that it must be perfect, so that not only what is commanded is done, but it is done in the manner in which it is commanded and in the way in which it is enjoined upon them. Hence here it is said "as he had commanded." The Gloss: perfect obedience. Colossians 3:20: "Children, obey your parents in all things." The fourth is that it must be discreet, so that obedience is given to him to whom it is owed, and in that in which it is owed, so that nothing is done against God: hence it says that he did as the Angel commanded him — not an evil spirit, but one of God. 1 John 4:1: "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they be of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world," and so forth. "And he took." Here it is shown in what things he obeyed, and three things are set forth: first, the obedience which he showed to the Angel; second, the reverence which he showed to the mother; third, the compliance which he showed to Christ once born. The Angel commanded Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife." And Joseph did as he commanded, and so forth. Whence it is clear that he found the woman good. But did he not already have her in the house? Why then does it say, rising up... he took? Chrysostom answers: because he had not cast her out from the house, but from his heart. Or because she was first taken in betrothal, but the nuptials were still to be celebrated afterward, and then it is said that she is taken, and that she is a wife. And lest anyone should suspect that carnal union intervened, he adds, "and he did not know her." Here it must be known that this word "to know" is taken in two ways in Sacred Scripture: sometimes for recognition, John 14:7: "and henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him"; sometimes for carnal union, as in Genesis 4:1: "And Adam knew his wife Eve," etc., namely, carnally. But an objection is raised, because it is not said simply that he did not know her, etc., but "until she brought forth her son." Therefore afterward he knew her; whence also Helvidius said that although as a virgin she conceived Christ, nevertheless afterward she had other sons by Joseph. And therefore Jerome says that "until" sometimes signifies something finite and determinate, as if I should say, "I will not come until I eat," because thereby I signify that I am going to come afterward; but sometimes it signifies infinitely and indeterminately, for example 1 Corinthians 15:25: "For he must reign, until he puts all his enemies under his feet." Will he then not reign afterward? Indeed he will; but Scripture uses such a manner of speaking because it intends to remove that which could be doubtful. For it could be doubtful whether he would reign, at a time when he had not yet put his enemies under his feet. Likewise it could be doubtful, once the Blessed Virgin had given birth, whether before the birth she had been known by Joseph — since the first point ought to come into doubt for no one, seeing that the Angels sang: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will," Luke 2:14. And this, therefore, is what the Evangelist intends. And Jerome argues excellently against Helvidius: "You say, Helvidius, that before this Joseph did not know her, because he had been admonished in his sleep by the Angel. If, then, an admonition in sleep so availed that he did not join himself to Mary, how much more the knowledge of the Angels, the adoration of the shepherds and of the magi?" Chrysostom, however, took "knowledge" for intellectual recognition: that is, he did not know how great her dignity was; but after she gave birth, he came to know it. Others say that it is taken for sensible recognition, and thus the opinion of these is fairly probable as well. For they say that Moses, from the Lord's speaking with him, had such brightness in his face that the children of Israel could not gaze intently upon his face, 2 Corinthians 3:7. Therefore if Moses had this from his fellowship with God, much more did this Blessed Virgin, who bore him in her womb, have such brightness in her face that Joseph did not recognize her. But the first exposition is more literal. Likewise Helvidius says that the letter states, "until she brought forth her firstborn son." "First" is said with respect to a later one. Therefore she had other children. Jerome answers that it is customary in Sacred Scripture that those are called firstborn whom no others precede: Exodus 13:12 it is said that the firstborn of the Jews were to be offered to the Lord. Jerome asks: was it then necessary to wait, so that they would not be offered until a second one was born? Therefore those are called firstborn whom no others precede; and thus it is to be understood here. The compliance follows. Luke 2:21 carries this out more fully, but Matthew touches on it briefly. For thus the Holy Spirit wills, that what one has said, the other should pass over in silence. "He called his name Jesus"; this name indeed was not a little renowned among the ancients, and desired; Genesis 49:18: "I will look for your salvation, O Lord." And Habakkuk 3:18: "But I will rejoice in the Lord, and I will exult in God my Jesus."”

Post-Reformation

c. 1650 – 1900
1771
A.D.
John Gill Reformed
1697–1771
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child,.... These words are rightly applied to the virgin Mary and her son Jesus, for of no other can they be understood; not of Ahaz's wife and his son Hezekiah, who was already born, and must be eleven or twelve years of age when these words were spoken; nor of any other son of Ahaz by her or any other person since no other was Lord of Judea; nor of the wife of Isaiah, and any son of his, who never had any that was king of Judah. The prophecy is introduced here as in Isaiah with a "behold!" not only to raise and fix the attention, but to denote that it was something wonderful and extraordinary which was about to be related; and is therefore called a "sign", wonder, or miracle; which lay not, as some Jewish writers (g) affirm, in this, that the person spoken of was unfit for conception at the time of the prophecy, since no such thing is intimated; or in this, that it should be a son and not a daughter (h), which is foretold; for the wonder lies not in the truth of the prediction, but in the extraordinariness of the thing predicted; much less in this (i), that the child should eat butter and honey as soon as born; since nothing is more natural and common with new born infants, than to take in any sort of liquids which are sweet and pleasant. But the sign or wonder lay in this, that a "virgin" should "conceive" or "be with child"; for the Evangelist is to be justified in rendering, by "a virgin"; by the Septuagint having so rendered it some hundreds of years before him, by the sense of the word, which comes from and which signifies to "hide" or "cover"; virgins being such who are unknown to, and not uncovered by men, and in the Eastern countries were kept recluse from the company and conversation of men; and by the use of the word in all other places, Gen 24:43. The last of these texts the Jews triumph in, as making for them, and against us, but without any reason; since it does not appear that the "maid" and the "adulterous woman" are one and the same person; and if they were, the vitiated woman might be called a maid or virgin, according to her own account of herself, or in the esteem of others who knew her not, or as antecedent to her defilement; see Deu 22:28. Besides, could this be understood of any young woman married or unmarried, that had known a man, it would be no wonder, no surprising thing that she should "conceive" or "be with child", and "bring forth a son". It is added, and they shall call his name Emmanuel. The difference between Isaiah and Matthew is very inconsiderable, it being in the one "thou shalt call", that is, thou virgin shalt call him by this name; and in the other "they shall call", that is, Joseph, Mary, and others; for, besides that some copies read the text in Matthew "thou shalt call", the words both in the one and the other may be rendered impersonally, "and shall be called"; and the meaning is, not that he should be commonly known and called by such a name, any more than by any, or all of those mentioned in Isa 9:6, but only that he should be so, which is a frequent use of the word; or he should be that, and so accounted by others, which answers to the signification of this name, which the Evangelist says, being interpreted is God with us: for it is a compound word of "God" and "with us", and well agrees with Jesus, who is God in our nature, the word that was made flesh and dwelt among us. Joh 1:14, and is the one and only Mediator between God and us, Ti1 2:5 (k). So the Septuagint interpret the word in Isa 8:8. (g) Jarchi. in Isa. vii. 14. (h) Gaon. in Aben Ezra, in ib. (i) Kimchi & Aben Ezra in ib. R. Isaac Chizuk. Emun. p. 1. c. 21. (k) See more of this in a book of mine, called "The Prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah, literally fulfilled in Jesus", ch. 5. p. 92, 93, &c.”
Source
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“Behold a virgin, [5] &c. The Jews sometimes objected, as we see in St. Justin’s dialogue with Tryphon, that the Hebrew word alma, in the prophet Isaias, signified no more than a young woman . But St. Jerome tells us that alma signifies a virgin kept close up. Let the Jews, says he, shew me any place in which the Hebrew word alma, is applied to any one that is not a virgin, and I will own my ignorance. Besides the very circumstances in the text of the prophet, are more than a sufficient confutation of this Jewish exposition; for there a sign, or miracle, is promised to Achaz; and what miracle would it be for a young woman to have a child, when she had ceased to be a virgin? (Witham) — How happens it that nowhere in the gospels, or in any other part, do we find Christ called Emmanuel? I answer, that in the Greek expression the name is given for the thing signified; and the meaning is: He shall be a true Emmanuel, i.e., a God with us, true God and true man. (Estius) — The text says, they shall call, i.e., all men shall look upon Him as an Emmanuel. Again, his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty, the Prince of peace, &c., i.e., He shall be all these, not so much nominally, as really and in effect. (Haydock)”
Source
1863
A.D.
1796–1863
“In an imperfect sense God might be said to be with His people when He protected them, and put their enemies to flight ; but the presence among men of God incarnate from a virgin, was foreshadowed' by that manifestation of His favor. The term is literally fulfi'lled in Christ.”
1871
A.D.
1871
“Behold, a virgin--It should be "the virgin" meaning that particular virgin destined to this unparalleled distinction. shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us--Not that He was to have this for a proper name (like "Jesus"), but that He should come to be known in this character, as God manifested in the flesh, and the living bond of holy and most intimate fellowship between God and men from henceforth and for ever.”
Source

Undated

date unknown
date
unknown
Glossa Ordinaria Medieval
“(ap. Anselm.) Or, he says, all this was done, meaning, the Virgin was betrothed, she was kept chaste, she was found with child, the revelation was made by the Angel, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken. For that the Virgin should conceive and should bring forth would never have been fulfilled, had she not been espoused that she should not be stoned; and had not her secret been disclosed by the Angel, and so Joseph taken her unto him, that she was not dismissed to disgrace and to perish by stoning. So had she perished before the birth, that prophecy would have been made void which says, She shall bring forth a Son. (Isa. 7:14.)”
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.