"Behold, the
virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name
Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us." (Matthew 1:23)
Arguably, Isaiah 7:14
is the most contested verse in the Old Testament. Although Matthew
unequivocally states that this is fulfilled by the birth of the Messiah, the
Old Testament indicates a fulfillment during the life of King Ahaz. These two
perspectives can be reconciled using the concept of a “double fulfillment.” But
is this an understanding that Christianity has illegitimately imposed upon the
Old Testament?
A young Jewish believer
reluctantly confessed that he thought that the Rabbis had a better
understanding of Scripture, in at least one area. He was referring to Isaiah
7:14, perhaps the most contested Old Testament verse.
The Book of Matthew requires us to
understand Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy fulfilled by the birth of the Messiah
Jesus to the Virgin Mary. However, the rabbis raise four potent challenges
against this interpretation:
1.
There is no imperative to take "Immanuel"
("God with us" in the Hebrew) as a description of the
"child" as the NT insists on understanding it – God actually
with us in Jesus Christ. Instead, the Rabbis insist that "Immanuel"
is merely a name like Daniel or Nathaniel ("El" always
means "God" in Hebrew) and not a description of the nature of the
person.
2.
The Rabbis correctly assert that the Hebrew word
"almah," translated as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 can possibly
be translated as "young maiden." Furthermore, if Isaiah had wanted to
unequivocally say "virgin," he could have used the unequivocal word,
"betulah," in this context, not the equivocal “almah.” “Betulah” always means “virgin.”
3.
The prophecy of 7:14 was given to King Ahaz (ca. 735 BC)
as a divine sign of what God had promised him – that the two northern kings,
Pekah (Israel) and Rezin (Syria), who were threatening his own nation of Judah,
would soon be destroyed (Isaiah 7:1-16). The birth of Jesus, which took place
over 700 years later, couldn't possibly be a sign for Ahaz.
4.
Isaiah's prophecy seems to have already been fulfilled
by the birth of his son. Isaiah had prophesied to Ahaz that the promised events
of the demise of Damascus (Syria) and Samaria (the Northern kingdom of Israel)
would precede the sign-child’s maturation:
·
“Curds
and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the
good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the
good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings” (Isaiah
7:15-16).
This
same prophecy seems to be reiterated shortly afterwards when Isaiah’s wife
gives birth to their own child, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz:
·
“Then
I [Isaiah] went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord
said to me, ‘Call his name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz; for before the child shall
have knowledge to cry 'My father' and 'My mother,' the riches of Damascus and
the spoil of Samaria will be taken away before the king of Assyria’" (Isa.
8:3-4).
Here
again, we find the same two elements—the destruction of both Damascus and
Samaria preceding the child’s maturation. This seems to indicate that the
prophecy had already been fulfilled 700 years before Christ. Therefore, by
applying this prophecy to the birth of Christ and “illegitimately manipulating”
Hebrew Scripture into saying what it never intended to say, the Christian
Church has hidden behind some imaginative and self-serving speculations.
Let's start with
the last challenge first. If the birth of Isaiah's son had already fulfilled
Isaiah 7:14, then this is a clear case of a multiple fulfillment. This concept
suggests that a single prophetic message is sometimes fulfilled at different
times and in slightly different ways. It acknowledges that the final
fulfillment is often preceded by types. This is clearly visible in the New
Testament, which understands the entire sacrificial system, with its holidays
and offerings, as pre-figurements of Christ. But do the Hebrew Scriptures also
provide evidence of this type of foreshadowing--that prophecies and objects are
often pre-figurements or types of some ultimate realities yet to be revealed? Yes!
Although the Hebrew Scriptures are not often explicit about pointing out types,
they nevertheless do allude to them. For example, the prophet Zechariah sees
the broken, assailed high priest Joshua as a type of One to come.
·
“Then
he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right
hand to oppose him. And the Lord
said to Satan, ‘The Lord rebuke
you, Satan!... Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?’ Now Joshua was
clothed with filthy garments, and was standing before the Angel. 4Then
He answered and spoke to those who stood before Him, saying, ‘Take away the
filthy garments from him.’ And to him He said, ‘See, I have removed your
iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes.’ And I said, ‘Let
them put a clean turban on his head…Hear, O Joshua, the high priest, you and
your companions who sit before you, for they are a wondrous sign; for
behold, I am bringing forth My Servant the BRANCH…And I will remove the iniquity
of that land in one day’” (Zech. 3:1-9).
This passage
abounds in prefigurements and types. Joshua and his companions are symbolic of
what the Lord will ultimately do through the Messiah. The filthy garments are
symbolic of the sins that God will remove “in one day!” This removal serves as
a prefigurement of a justification by grace through faith alone. Joshua was
certainly sin-stained. God never corrected the damning accusations of Satan.
They were probably true, but the righteous God did something Satan could never
understand. He would remove sin through the undisclosed work of a mysterious
individual, the BRANCH!
The identity of
the “Branch” becomes clearer three chapters later where Zechariah is given
another assignment regarding Joshua in his symbolic role.
·
“Take
the silver and gold, make an elaborate crown, and set it on the head of Joshua
the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Then speak to him, saying, 'Thus says
the Lord of hosts, saying:
‘Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH! From His place He shall branch out,
and He shall build the temple of the Lord.
Yes, He shall build the temple of the Lord.
He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on His throne; so He shall be a
priest on His throne’’” (Zech. 6:11-13).
This
passage is also replete with types and symbols. A crown is placed upon the head
of Joshua, ostensibly making this priest a king! However, Joshua never actually
became a king nor was he supposed to. Israel already had a civil magistrate,
Zerubbabel. If Joshua had become king, this would have brought him into direct
conflict with Zerubbabel. However, we have no evidence that this ever happened.
From all indications, they worked harmoniously together to build the Temple. Furthermore,
a separation of powers had been strictly instituted in Israel. A priest
couldn’t become a king and a king couldn’t become a priest. Only the Messiah
was worthy of occupying both posts (Psalm 110). God was revealing through
Joshua that He would ultimately bring the two offices together through the
glorious BRANCH who would “sit and rule on His throne.” Thus, Joshua was merely
a type or prefigurement of Someone greater who would ultimately fulfill the
type.
Are we
confronted with something similar in Isaiah 7? Could Isaiah’s child be a sign
of a more glorious Child? Isaiah says as much!
·
“Here
am I (Isaiah) and the children whom the Lord
has given me! We are for signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells in Mount Zion”
(8:18).
Signs of
what? Could Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz have prefigured the Messiah as Joshua did?
The narratives regarding Joshua clearly point to a Person beyond Joshua. Does
the Isaiah passage point beyond Isaiah’s son? To answer this question, it is imperative that we regard the broader
context (Chaps. 7-12) where we find the same elements of the “Immanuel”
prophecy. These related passages illuminate the original prophecy.
The term
"Immanuel" (the conjunction of two very common words: "Immanu",
“with us,” with "El", God) appears only three times in Hebrew
Scripture. The first instance is found in Isaiah 7:14. The other two instances
are both found in the next chapter.
This alone would suggest that the three instances are related in Isaiah's mind (and in God’s)! Additionally, all three
uses are unusual, provocative and thematically related.
"Immanuel"
is encountered for the second time after a description of what Assyria will do
to Judah after Assyria swallows up Syria (also called “Damascus” and “Aram”)
and Israel (also called “Ephraim”) in 721 BC.
·
“Now
therefore, behold, the Lord brings up over them the waters of the River, strong
and mighty--the king of Assyria and all his glory; he will go up over all his
channels And go over all his banks. He will pass through Judah, he will
overflow and pass over, he will reach up to the neck; and the stretching out of
his wings will fill the breadth of Your land, O Immanuel” [or “God
with us”] (Isaiah 8:7-8).
Assyria will
conquer Judah "up to the neck" (8:8). This probably refers to
Assyria's unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem in 701 BC, which culminated when the
angel of the Lord "put to death 185,000 men in the Assyrian camp" (Isaiah
37:36). The prophecy ends with the cry, "O Immanuel,” seemingly an outcry
for help to the same individual of 7:14. (Even if this appearance of “Immanuel”
doesn’t represent a cry for help, it does plainly demonstrate that “Immanuel”
is a significant figure in the history of Israel.) However, in this latter
context, Immanuel seems to be more than a mere human! It would be ridiculous to
cry for help to a human in such a hopeless situation. Assyria’s victory seemed
assured without miraculous intervention. However, it was this very intervention
that turned the tide.
The third
instance of "Immanuel" is more striking. In Isaiah 8:9-10, a warning
is issued against Assyria and the nations it had overwhelmed and incorporated
within its army:
· "Be
shattered, O you peoples, and be broken in pieces! Give ear, all you from far
countries. Gird yourselves, but be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, but be
broken in pieces. Take counsel together, but it will come to nothing; speak the
word, but it will not stand, for God is with us [“Immanuel” in the Hebrew]" (8:9-10).
Despite the
overwhelming superiority of the Assyrian army, it will not succeed against the
wobbling and panic-stricken Jerusalem ("the neck") for one simple
reason--"for God is with us" (the third instance of "Immanuel")!
What started out as a cry for help (8:8) has now become a declaration of
triumph (8:10)! "Immanuel" is the cause of this triumph. Reading the
account of the destruction of the Assyrian army (Isaiah 36-39), it is clear
that "Immanuel" can't pertain to Hezekiah, nor to any mere mortal.
"Immanuel" (appropriately translated here as "God is with
us") holds the destiny of nations within His hands. (It's interesting to
observe that English translations all render the Hebrew as "God is with
us" rather than simply "Immanuel" which consistency among the
two prior instances would ordinarily demand.)
To suggest that
these three "Immanuels" represent three different people is more than
sound interpretation will bear, especially since they are all found in the
adjacent chapters. The more natural interpretation demands that the same titles
or names pertain to the same
person. Furthermore, this individual
appears to be both human (a "child") and Divine! This conclusion will
be born out as we track this “child” Immanuel in two subsequent and related
contexts (Isaiah 9:6-7; 11:1-12).
Let's now look
at another concept found in 7:14 which is also repeated within the context of
chapters 7 through 12 and serves to unify them. This is the concept of the
birth of a child:
·
“For
unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be
upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty
God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and
peace here will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to
order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward,
even forever…” (Isa. 9:6-7).
This prophecy is
not only related to 7:14 by virtue of a birth of a special child, but also by the
divine names. In 7:14, we encountered a divine name (“Immanuel”) or a description
designating a child. In 9:6 we encounter four divine titles. I don't say
"names" because at this point, it should be clear that these can't be
mere names – not all four! – but rather descriptive titles of the Child.
These four titles contain eight words—too cumbersome for actual names. It would
be like naming a child “Anthony Robert Spencer Alan Thomas Arthur Andrew
Timothy.”
The first title,
"Wonderful Counselor" ("Pele Yoetz" in Hebrew), is clearly
divine. "Pele" might better have been translated "awesome"
because this term only refers to God or to the wonders He miraculously brings
into existence (for example, Exo. 15:11; Dan. 12:6).
"Mighty
God" ("El Gibor") is clearly a divine designation because
"El" as a free-standing word always refers to God. In addition to
this, note that "Immanu El" of 7:14 also carries the free-standing
"El" (along with 8:8 and 8:10), establishing another parallel with
7:14. This also serves to rule against "Immanu El" as merely a name
(as Nathaniel), as the Rabbis propose, instead of a description.
"Everlasting
Father" is also a divine designation. Who can be everlasting apart from
God Himself? Even "Prince of Peace" seems to be a divine reference,
for it is God Himself who will bring peace. Some Jewish interpreters want to
understand these divine names as mere reminders that it is God who is
performing His works through this child. However, all Jewish commentators argue
that this prophecy cannot pertain to Jesus. For example, Gerald Sigal has
written:
· The fact remains
that Jesus did not literally or figuratively fulfill any of Isaiah’s words. A “wonderful
counselor” does not advise his followers that if they have faith they can be
agents of destruction (Matthew 21:19-21; Mark 11:14, 20-23). (The Jew and the Christian Missionary,
32)
The rest of
Sigal’s commentary is also so absurd that it is not worth reciting. However, it
is this very Child who is called these descriptive titles. Nowhere does the
text suggest that He is given these divine titles in remembrance of God!
It strains
credulity to say that the "child" of 9:6 is different from the
"child" of 7:14. As the "Immanu El" of 7:14 (8:8, 10) will
reign supreme, so too will the "El Gibor" of 9:6. Are we looking at
two different Child Deities or at One? The Child of 9:6 will set up a kingdom with
“no end,” in harmony with the Immanuel we had encountered in two previous
chapters. This argues against two divine children or kingdoms.
This context is
not complete without chapter 11 where we find another allusion to the
Child:
· “There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. The
Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon
Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the
Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.
His delight is in the fear of the Lord,
and He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes, nor decide by the hearing of
His ears; but with righteousness He shall judge the poor, and decide with
equity for the meek of the earth; He shall strike the earth with the rod of His
mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked. Righteousness
shall be the belt of His loins, and faithfulness the belt of His waist. The
wolf also shall dwell with the lamb… They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My
holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:1-9).
Here we find an
enlargement of the Messianic portrait established earlier. We find the Child,
at long last, reigning in His own kingdom. However, in chapter 11 this child is
referred to with slightly different terms. Here He is a "Rod" and a
"Branch," born from the "stump of Jesse" (11.1), the father
of King David. Therefore, we are looking at the same lineage! Unmistakably,
this is the same Child who "will reign upon the throne of David and over
his kingdom" (9:7).
Other parallels
are also clear. Both kingdoms "will have no end" (9:7), an idea which
is expressed in 11:9. Both kingdoms will entail the establishment of
"justice and righteousness" (9:6; compare with 11:3-5) and endless
"peace" (9:7; 11:6-9).
The chapters
build upon one another. In addition to the above elaborations upon the initial
prophetic germ, the four divine titles (9:6; and the fifth of 7:14) seem to
receive an expanded treatment in chapter 11: "Wonderful counselor" in
11:2-5; "Prince of Peace" in 11:6-9. (Perhaps "El Gibor"
and "Everlasting Father" are reflected within the entire prophecy of
chapter 11 and the prayer of chapter 12.) These parallels each serve to
demonstrate that these prophecies are closely related. If this is the case,
then one prophecy is illuminated and enhanced by the others, and we must
understand "Immanu El" and “child” (7:14) in a way that accords with
the other above-mentioned prophecies.
The seed of a
prophecy that Isaiah proclaimed in 7:14 and amplified in 8:6-10 and 9:6-7, he
trumpets out in chapter 11. This child is indeed the cause of all of the
world's rejoicing, and it is only natural that this great revelation should
culminate in a song of praise (chap. 12).
This song has
several interesting characteristics. There are three references to
"salvation" ("Yeshua" in Hebrew and believed to be Jesus’
Hebrew name):
·
“Behold,
God is my salvation [“My Yeshua”]; I will trust, and will not be afraid;
for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation.”
With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation…Shout, and sing
for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of
Israel.” (Isaiah 12:2-3, 6)
Chapter 12 is
part of a single related prophecy (chapter 7-12). It concludes with "for
great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel.” (12:6). This seems to be a play
on "God with us" ("Immanu El"). The words are different but
the theme is the same. All of this suggests that chapters 7 through 12 must be
regarded together, as one inseparable prophetic utterance.
If Isaiah 7:14 is part of a greater prophecy
(chapters 7-12), then this verse must be understood within the context of this
entire prophecy. Any word or phrase needs the context of the sentence,
paragraph, and narrative to be truly understood. Understanding "Immanu
El" as merely a human child who was born during the reign of King Ahaz
fails to see 7:14 in its broader context. This is an interpretive failure that
an unbiased eye would not make.
When the rabbis
translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek about 180 years before Christ for the
Jewish world of the Diaspora, they had to deal with Isaiah 7:14. If "almah"
was equivocal and could be translated by either "virgin" or
"young maiden," the Rabbis had an important choice to make. (It
should be noted that in each of the seven appearances of “almah” in Scripture,
there is no compelling reason to not translate it as “virgin.”) If they translated it as "young
maiden," it meant that they understood the prophecy as having been
fulfilled in its totality at the time of Ahaz. If they translated
"almah" as "virgin," then they understood that this
referred to a miraculous birth that had not yet taken place, a
fulfillment which was still awaiting its day. They translated "almah"
as "Parthenos," in the Greek, a term that means "virgin!"
In light of this, Matthew was simply walking in the expectation of the rabbis
when he applied this prophecy to the birth of the Messiah, Yeshua.
Let's return to
the third objection of the Rabbis--that the birth of Jesus (Yeshua) couldn't
possibly be a sign for Ahaz, to whom the prophecy was addressed. However, a
closer look at the text shows that the prophecy wasn't intended for Ahaz
alone. The entire "house
of David" was in view.
· Then he said, “Hear
now, O house of David!
Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore
the Lord Himself will give you
(plural) a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall
call His name Immanuel” (7:13-14).
Isaiah
recognized that the audience for his prophecy went beyond Ahaz. His message
transcended its temporal boundaries, and he knew it! The prophecies constituted
a sign of something far greater (8:18).
There is another
reason why neither Hezekiah nor Isaiah's son could have fulfilled 7:14 in its
entirety. A natural birth is hardly a “sign” (7:14). Young maidens are giving
birth all of the time. There is nothing unusual about this, nothing that would
have the persuasive weight to confirm a seemingly improbable prophecy. Only an
unusual birth, a virgin birth, would constitute a legitimate sign, although an
embarrassing one for the virgin herself.
Clearly, this
prophecy reaches beyond the person and time of Ahaz. In many ways it points to
a divine Person standing at the headwaters of both history and the future, to a
Person who holds the destiny of Israel in His hand. In the strongest terms, it
cries out that this is the One for whom Israel has been waiting, the One who
would fulfill all the promises of God seated upon "David's throne"
(9:7). It would be this Child who would set up an everlasting kingdom (9:7,
11:9) in which there would be no end to peace and the knowledge of the Lord.
Although there was a type or a shadow of fulfillment in Ahaz's time, the
ultimate fulfillment of 7:14 awaited the Messiah.
My Jewish friend
believed that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah, but he was also very conflicted
in his understanding of the prophecies. This deprived him of peace. The
antidote to the conflict that rages in so many of us is a resolution of
the conflict, the perceiving of God’s hidden treasures in the midst of the
confusion. This requires persistent work, but even more than work, the grace of
God, which He pours out liberally upon those weary souls who seek His wisdom
(Jam. 1:5, Psalm 51:6; 25:14).
