We have now arrived at the place where messianic prophecies start to come “fast and furious.” It all begins with the prediction of a woman giving birth to a boy she calls “Immanuel.” For this reason, some have called chapters 7-12 the “Book of Immanuel,” and I think this is an appropriate name.
The “Immanuel” prophecy is highly controversial, and while I’m not going to be overly lengthy or technical here, I will spend more time on it than on other sections. I think it’s particularly crucial to understand that this is a future prophecy that was not fulfilled in Isaiah’s day.
Chapter 7 is one of the few historical narratives in the book of Isaiah. Judah is being attacked by Israel and Aram, and King Ahaz of Judah is terrified. Isaiah visits him in order to encourage him. He tells the king that his enemies will be destroyed, and then the Lord (presumably through Isaiah) tells Ahaz to ask God for a sign. The sign, he says, can be anything Ahaz wants, without limit. But Ahaz refuses to ask, attempting to mask his lack of faith as a pious act. Probably Ahaz had already decided that he would seek deliverance from Assyria and not from God (see 2 Kings 16:5-9).
Note, now, what happens next. Verse 13 reads:
Isaiah 7:13 (ESV) “And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?”
In plain and simple terms, the Lord is exasperated with Ahaz. The king had a perfect opportunity to put his faith in God and he refused. Ahaz’s rejection of the Lord meets with the Lord’s rejection of Ahaz. It is very important, I believe, to recognize that verse 14 is not a “second chance” that the Lord gives to Ahaz. It is not God giving the sign even though Ahaz rejected it. No. Rather, the Lord gives a different sign. If Ahaz had trusted, God would have delivered him (in whatever glorious way the king had desired). But since Ahaz refused, he will be punished. This point is very clear if you read all of verses 14-25. If you just pull verse 14 out of context, you can understand it as being something else. This you must not do. Let’s look at verse 14.
Isaiah 7:14-17 (ESV) “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey
when[in order that] he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.””
I’ve made one slight change to the ESV translation which I can support from the Hebrew. In other words, I’m not doing anything wild and crazy with this passage. Be suspicious when interpreters have to make lots of innovative changes to make their theory work. I realize that there are debated elements in the ESV translation above, and I will address some of them in a separate post, but I don’t want to lose the momentum here.
Let me paraphrase the above verses as I understand them. God is going to give a wonderful sign to the house of David (“you” is plural in v. 14; the sign is not directly to Ahaz). A virgin will give birth, and the boy will be named “God with us.” This child will grow up in poverty (eating food that’s available in a destroyed land). This experience of suffering will help him to understand how to make good moral decisions, which Ahaz could not do. The reason that he will have such a childhood is because Ahaz’s kingdom will be destroyed by Assyria. This devastation of the land is described in verses 18-25. It is continued in chapter 8 where the prophet laments the destruction “of your land, O Immanuel.” This destruction plunges the land of Israel into darkness (8:21-9:2). But “the people who walked in darkness have seen a great light…” (9:2). I believe that it is very clear that the darkness caused by Assyria’s invasion in chapter 7 is the same darkness that the “Prince of Peace” emerges from in chapters 8-9. The son in chapter 7 is born into poverty, and he is the same “son” who is born in darkness in chapter 9. The sign to the “house of David” in chapter 7 is a son, and the child in chapter 9 is the king who sits on the “throne of David.” The child of chapter 7 is “God with us,” and the child of chapter 9 is “Mighty God.” The son who learns to “refuse the evil and choose the good” in chapter 7 is the same person who rules “with justice and with righteousness.”
Matthew thinks the individual prophesied in chapter 7 and the one in chapter 9 are the same person. He says that the virgin conception of Mary “fulfilled” Isaiah 7:14 (see Matt 1:23). When Jesus begins his earthly ministry, Matthew quotes Isaiah 9:1-2 to say that Jesus is the light who has come to a land in darkness (see Matt 4:12-16). There is much more to say about Matthew’s understanding of Isaiah, but for now, I simply want you to see that Matthew’s interpretation is the same as mine.
This does not work if you believe that there was an Immanuel born in Isaiah’s day. If that prophecy was fulfilled already, it is fulfilled. If you cash your paycheck at the bank, you can’t bring it back and cash it again tomorrow. Fulfilled means fulfilled (unless the check says you can deposit it twice, or the prophecy says there will be two boys named Immanuel).
But let me go one farther. This a key point that I do not remember seeing addressed elsewhere (though I confess that the literature is vast and I touched only a smidgen of it). Explain to me, you who believe otherwise, exactly how an Immanuel born in the time of Ahaz was a blessed prophecy. The typical way it is understood is this: The woman gives birth, names the boy Immanuel. Before he is 20 years old (the age of knowing right from wrong), Israel and Aram are destroyed. Yippee! We ‘re saved. God was right. God is “with us.” Oh, wait, hold on, here comes Assyria – AHHHHHHH, we ‘re dead! Assyria overruns us, the land is destroyed, those who remain are eating curds and honey. Immanuel is dead too (or, if he somehow escaped, will be by about the age of 70). And now there is no hope. There is no reason to believe that Judah has a future. There is no reason to believe that the “house of David” will live on. In fact, given Ahaz’s wickedness, everybody expects that this really is the end; he (and the other wicked people of the house of David) deserved it. So if Immanuel is born in the 8th century, the hope that he brings is very short-lived indeed. God may be “with us,” but he is with us in judgment, not in deliverance.
The thread, though, that runs throughout Isaiah (more coming on this) is that in judgment, there is a glimmer of hope. God is going to severely punish his people for their sin, BUT he is not finished with them. He will bring them back from exile. He will forgive their sins. He will fulfill the promises he has already made. This Immanuel prophecy is entirely in line with this theme. Because Ahaz has rejected God, he will be judged. In fact, note the irony: Ahaz goes to Assyria for deliverance, but God uses Assyria to not only destroy Judahâ
€™s enemies, but Judah itself (this is especially graphic in Isa 8:7-8 – the floodwaters come and just keep coming). But all is not lost. The people’s sins will be forgiven (Isa 1:25-26), Jerusalem will be exalted (Isa 2:2), the world will be filled with peace (Isa 2:4), a branch will come forth (Isa 4:2-6). How all of this ties together has not yet been explained. Isaiah is putting the puzzle pieces on the table, and when he has done that, guys like Simeon and Matthew will show us that they were able to put the puzzle together.
Here’s a crucial point. Absolutely crucial. When Mary comes along in 5 B.C. and the angel tells her that she’s going to have a child, she cannot tell anyone (and they cannot tell her) that she is the “virgin who will conceive.” If Immanuel was already born, the prophecy is fulfilled. If it was fulfilled by a non-virgin woman who gave birth to a very ordinary son, the prophecy was talking about something else. If Matthew or anyone else claims that this prophecy predicted a supernatural conception, all of their Jewish neighbors are just going to laugh at them. They made it up. They claimed the first one was a “type,” but there’s no evidence that the first one was a type. They say it’s a “type,” because they have to get out of a tough spot. They have to find some way to justify this woman’s story about getting pregnant before marriage. Poor Mary.
But, since there was no record of an “Immanuel” being born in ancient times, and since the ancient people believed that this was a conception by a virgin (as translated by the Jews in the Greek Septuagint), and since the Jewish people were living in a land of darkness, and since the royal house of David (i.e., Mary and Joseph) was not living in a palace but were rather eating “curds and honey,” everyone was right to be waiting for the glorious fulfillment of this prophecy.
I think too that the future fulfillment of Immanuel explains why Isaiah recorded this event. If the birth of Immanuel was simply a “stopwatch” to tell Ahaz how long he had until Israel and Aram were destroyed, that had already occurred by the time that Isaiah wrote the book, it wouldn’t seem to have any more relevance, and thus could be easily omitted.
I realize that I have skipped a lot of things. In order not to get waylaid a dozen times along the way, I ignored some difficulties and objections for now so that I could present my interpretation as simply as possible. I will address some of those details in the next post, and those who are not interested can skip it without missing the grand picture that I am trying to help you to see.
Todd – I’ve been learning a lot from these. Thanks.
Thanks so much. This is SO interesting. I agree with all of your comments.