The Glorious Hope of Isaiah (#6 bonus: Immanuel Objections)

I want to answer a few issues that more advanced readers may be interested in with regard to the interpretation presented in the previous post in this series.  Other readers can skip this one without missing the flow of Isaiah.  I simply want to respond to what some might consider barriers to adopting my interpretation.

Is almah a virgin?  This is an unbelievably controversial issue.  It often is attended with heat that interferes with light.  Frankly, in my view, if Isaiah’s hearers thought Isaiah was talking about a “young woman” without regard to her virginity, it doesn’t bother me.  I agree that almah does not explicitly define the woman’s sexual status as the word “virgin” does in the English language.  But in that culture, when you talked about a young, unmarried woman, the assumption was that she had not been with a man.  Since nobody believes there were two virgin births, those who believe this prophecy was fulfilled in the 8th century have to understand almah as being a non-virgin.  I can’t rule this possibility out on the basis of this word alone.  But I can tell you that every time that almah is used in the Bible, it either is talking about a virgin or there’s not enough to prove otherwise.  It never clearly means a non-virgin.  And when the Jewish men in the 3rd century B.C. translated Isaiah, they used a Greek word with the more technical meaning of a virgin.  I am not saying that this is ironclad proof; I realize that maybe the LXX guys were “loose” in their translations, and that maybe there is a usage of parthenos that does not mean virgin.  But I am saying that I don’t have to work very hard to hold to almah meaning virgin, but the other side has to do somersaults to preclude it from meaning virgin.  Unfortunately, some of the somersaults that have been made are misleading or outright falsehoods.

Was the almah standing there in Isaiah’s presence?  The NET Bible translates Isa 7:14 as follows:

Isaiah 7:14 (NET) “For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.”

Besides the rendering of almah as virgin, there are two highly interpretive elements added to the NET translation (in bold).  You can see how the NET justifies these in the notes.  I ‘ll simply say that both of these are possibilities, but they are by no means certain.  The reason they put them in the text is to preclude a future fulfillment.  By making the young woman standing there that day, she can’t be Mary 700 years later.  But you don’t have to interpret either of these this way (and, in fact, out of a gazillion translations, no one else does, and that includes the Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).  Concerning “this” young woman, the word here is “the.”  It could be demonstrative, but it certainly doesn’t have to be.  “You will name” is also possible, as the verb “to call” could be either “she” or “you.”  But since it seems strange for Isaiah to suddenly start talking to a woman, when a woman has not been mentioned to this point in the story, everyone has always taken this as “she will name.”  Understand, you cannot rule out a future-only fulfillment in 7:14 unless you make these arbitrary decisions. 

What exactly was “the sign”?  This is the main question that comes up in response to the future-only fulfillment view.  Essentially, it is asked, how can the birth of Jesus 700 years later be a sign to Ahaz?  First, I would note that this is a sign to the “house of David” (you plural; cf. Isa 7:13).  Thus, it may not be intended directly or primarily to Ahaz.  Second, the sign should be understood as the whole set of events described in Isaiah 7:14-17.  That is, the sign is a virgin giving birth to a (royal) child in a land of poverty which is the result of the Assyrian invasion.  Ahaz, of course, is eating scrambled eggs and (beef) sausage and living in a luxurious palace.  The sign is that 1) there will be an heir (and I confess this aspect is not so obvious from the passage to us today, but I think that Ahaz understood it and we can understand it clearly from chapter 9 and elsewhere) even though 2) Assyria devastates the land.  Ahaz does see the beginning of the sign’s fulfillment.  Though Aram and Israel don’t destroy Judah, Assyria does.  This was unexpected by Ahaz.  Now the royal house has the circumstances into which Immanuel will be born.  He could be born at any time.  He is their hope, the demonstration that “God is with us.”  Thus he is very relevant.

Did Assyria destroy the house of David?  This question may be provoked by the previous answer.  I believe that Isaiah’s prophecies of judgment here (and through chapter 35) begin to be fulfilled bv Assyria.  The Assyrians take away Judah’s sovereignty, carry many Judeans into exile, and otherwise begin the process that Babylon will continue. By the way, I intend to explain in future posts how the exile did not (fully) end with the return in 536 B.C.  Israel is still in exile when Jesus is born.

Why did you change the ESV translation of 7:15?: I changed it from “He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good” to “in order that he will know.”  This is a legitimate interpretive decision that understands ledaato as final rather than temporal.  Others render it this way because they believe it is more likely grammatically.  I prefer it because I think the point here is the contrast between the boy and the king rather than establishing a timeline.  That too explains the repetition of “to refuse the evil and choose the good.”  Making good moral decisions is precisely what Ahaz could not do.  The future ruler of Judah would be different.  I think the author of Hebrews may have had this idea in mind when he spoke about Jesus:

Hebrews 5:8 (ESV) “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.”

Why did you gloss over the destruction of the “land of the two kings” in Isaiah 7:16?  I don’t think this is the ultimate point.  Verse 17 must be read together with verse 16 (and grammatically I can show why this is so).  I think that when Isaiah spoke verse 16 to Ahaz, a thrill may have gone up the king’s spine.  But when Isaiah explained just how the “land of the two kings” would be destroyed (Isa 7:17), his hopes were dashed.  He was afraid of Israel and Aram, and so he decided to trust Assyria (2 Kings 16:7-9).  But in so doing, he jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

Doesn’t Isaiah give a timeline in verse 16?:  “But before the boy knows enough…”  I believe that Isaiah is deliberately being vague here.  (It is quite common for prophets to be vague about timing; note in this regard 1 Peter 1:10-11, “inquiring what person or time.”)  The
point to Ahaz is that this is relevant to him.  Before (and he doesn’t say how long before) a certain time, the land will be destroyed.  He doesn’t know when Aram, Israel, and Judah will be overrun by Assyria, but it could potentially be very soon.  But the fact that the child will grow up eating the food of poverty (curds and honey; see Isa 7:22) indicates that the land is destroyed before he is born or before he is very old.  In my opinion, this interpretation is the weakest part of my view.  It can seem strange, in hindsight, to think that 700 years went by before this child was born.  But they didn’t have that hindsight.  For them, the reality was that destruction was coming, but God would raise a ruler out of that.  Timing was less important than the promise.  Furthermore, if you emphasize “before,” you transform the sign into purely a timepiece.  The elements of a virgin/young woman giving birth, a boy who is named Immanuel, his learning to reject the wrong, all are not only secondary but, frankly, irrelevant.  By the way, this kills you when you get to the typology issue (see below).

Isn’t the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz the fulfillment of the Immanuel prophecy?  This is a popular view among scholars because of the similarities between the prophecies (cf. Isa 8:1-4).  But the differences are insurmountable.  (Quoting from my paper now because I can’t remember all of this:) 1) Though the Lord says that the child will be called Immanuel, and though it is in Isaiah’s power to do so, the prophet gives him a different name, without giving any indication that this is the same child; 2) The name that Isaiah gives the child has a symbolic meaning which is unrelated to Immanuel; 3) The mother of the child is not an עַלְמָה but a נְבִיאָה, the wife of Isaiah; attempts to suggest that the עַלְמָה was Isaiah’s second wife are without evidence; 4) Isaiah, not the mother, names the child; 5) The time frames given for the two sons are different; 6) The reference to a prophet’s son in 8:8 does not make good sense, even if one takes the lesser possibility that this construction here refers to a regular citizen; 7) Isaiah misses many opportunities to inform us of the identity of the two.  To sum up, I think the point here is that everyone is looking for Immanuel (following 7:14), but he never arrives.  They ‘re still waiting when Isaiah delivers chapter 9, and chapter 11, and the rest.

Why can’t Jesus be the “greater fulfillment” or anti-type of the Immanuel prophecy?  There is no warrant for it in the text.  It is just as reasonable for me to say that there will be three Immanuels (or two Princes of Peace) as it is for you to say there will be two.  If it’s not in the text, there is no basis for it.  If you change the meaning of the text, then you ‘re wasting my time.  If we ‘re not interpreting the text for what it says, then there are no controls and we can start reading all kinds of things into every text.  If you make Jesus the anti-type, you ‘re breaking all the rules of typology.  To be a valid type/anti-type, you have a heightening of the type in the anti-type.  But if the first Immanuel was merely a stopwatch, then how is Jesus a “greater stopwatch”?  If the first woman to give birth was a non-virgin, this is not “heightened” but changed when a virgin gives birth.  These are two different kinds of women.  Mary is not a “greater non-virgin.”  The first woman was not a “lesser virgin.”  The first child was a regular kid with a meaningful name.  The second child was God-incarnate, literally “God with us.”  That is not “heightening” but it is something altogether different.

If you’ve read this far and want more, you can email me and I ‘ll send you the paper.  All of the above (with the one exception noted) is off the top of my head, and the paper is more exhaustive, more technical, and includes sources.  I believe the paper is particularly better at answering the last question above, especially as I quote various conservative scholars who say some ridiculous things to try to have two Immanuels.  In my opinion, there are two legitimate options: the traditional Jewish view and the traditional Christian view.  Either Immanuel was already born in Isaiah’s day or he was born to a virgin named Mary.  When you try to have both, you end up supporting the Jewish view that there is no biblical basis for Jesus being Immanuel.  To my utter dismay, this appears to be the popular thing to do among Christian scholars today.

A personal note: my study of Isaiah, and particularly of 7:14, has been greatly improved by several friends who gave me counsel and correction.  Among them, I particularly want to thank Abner Chou for his valuable insights.