Some evangelical scholars believe that the child “Immanuel” predicted in Isaiah 7 is a foreshadowing of a “greater” child who is predicted in Isaiah 9 (“Unto us a child is born…).  Is this possible?  Maybe.

I must first applaud those who hold to this view because they are trying to find textual evidence for their conclusion that the Isaiah 7 prediction foreshadowed (though didn’t technically fulfill) the birth of Jesus.  Having textual support should seem like a no-brainer for scholars, but there are too many who deny Matthew’s statement that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy but because of their Christian commitment argue without evidence that the Isaiah 7 child was a prefigurement of Jesus. 

Here is one example from an evangelical scholar who believes this though he gives no evidence for this view from the text.

Matthew . . . applied Isaiah’s ancient prophecy of Immanuel’s birth to Jesus (Matt. 1:22–23). The first Immanuel was a reminder to the people of God’s presence and a guarantee of a greater child to come who would manifest God’s presence in an even greater way. The second Immanuel is ‘God with us ‘ in a heightened and infinitely superior sense. He ‘fulfills ‘ Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy by bringing the typology intended by God to realization and by filling out or completing the pattern designed by God.

You can imagine what a Jewish scholar would say to this: what is your basis for concluding that the first Immanuel is a guarantee of a greater child?  What evidence can you provide that there is “typology intended by God” in Isaiah 7?  I agree with my Jewish friends: there is no such evidence.  They have a conclusion that they cannot support.  They only hold to this view because they are forced into it because they must believe that Matthew was somehow correct (“inspiration” becomes a “get-out-of-jail-free” card).

There is, however, a better way, and that is the point of this post.  Some scholars claim that there is evidence in the text because the Isaiah 7 child prefigures (or foreshadows, or is a type of) the child predicted in Isaiah 9.  This is much better, because now we have textual evidence.  Isaiah predicts two children and one was born in the 8th century (Isaiah 7) as a token of a greater child born sometime in the future (Isaiah 9).  There are clear similarities between the two children: both are born in times of distress, both are royal children, and both have names indicating God’s presence (Immanuel, Mighty God).  I personally think that the similarities between these two children are best explained because they are the same child, but for the purpose of this discussion, let’s assume they are similar but different.

Now we have a first child who might be viewed as a guarantee of a greater child.  Now we have a first child who can be seen as a type on the basis of the presence of the antitype.  If I excluded all other evidence from Isaiah (which to me strongly argues against this view), I could be happy with this proposal.

At least until I open the New Testament.  Matthew simply does not allow this possibility to stand.  Matthew does not say “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.”  That is what he should have said if the Isaiah 7 child prefigured the Isaiah 9 child.  But that’s not what he said.  Instead, he botched it, because he claimed that the prophecy of the first child was fulfilled.  Jesus was the first child predicted by Isaiah.  Jesus fulfilled the prophecy, “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.”

That means that if Isaiah 7 prefigures Isaiah 9, then Jesus is the type and we should be waiting for a greater antitype.  You cannot argue that Jesus (Isaiah 7) is a type of himself (Isaiah 9).

My previous posts about this passage can be found here and here and here.