The Sign of Immanuel, Fulfilled in Christ: Isaiah 7:10–17
Introduction
Throughout church history, the Book of Isaiah has been one of the most beloved books of the Old Testament, containing precious promises concerning the coming of our Lord. By most accounts, Isaiah is the second-most referenced Old Testament text in the New Testament, preceded only by the Psalms. According to scholar John F.A. Sawyer, Isaiah is quoted or alluded to in the New Testament about 250 times, with an astonishing forty-five of the sixty-six chapters represented.[1] In the prologue to his translation of Isaiah, St Jerome stated that Isaiah “should be called not so much a prophet as an evangelist. For he pursued all the mysteries of Christ and his church so clearly that you would think he was not prophesying about the future but recounting the history of what was past.”[2] Similar sentiments are shared by St Augustine and many others, with Matthew Poole noting “that some ancients called [Isaiah] the ‘fifth evangelist.’”[3]Clearly Isaiah has been a treasure of the church throughout the ages.
In this paper we will consider one of the most famous passages from Isaiah and also its first reference in the New Testament—“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14b, quoted in Mt. 1:23). This is a magnificent prophecy of our Messiah, and one that brings to mind memories of celebrating the seasons of Advent and Christmas in our congregations.
And yet if a student of Scripture were to spend a few moments beyond the Advent season seriously considering this passage in the context of Isaiah’s narrative, some questions emerge: Did Matthew “rip” the Immanuel prophecy out of its context? If he did not, what did it mean then in Isaiah’s time? Did a virgin bear a son?
Most modern commentators believe it necessary that the prophecy had a near fulfillment with a birth of a son, otherwise it would have been meaningless to Ahaz and Isaiah’s initial audience. These commentators would then see Christ’s fulfillment of this prophecy as either a fuller fulfillment, a double-fulfillment, or simply typological. These views are well-supported and reasonable interpretations of the text. However, this exegetical paper will put forth an alternative view, faithful to the text, which maintains that Isaiah 7:14 is a direct Messianic prophecy of Christ’s miraculous birth and was not fulfilled in the time of Ahaz with the birth of another son. While this may be a minority view today, it was one taught by a variety of men including John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, John Gill, J. Alec Motyer, and more.
Author
Before considering our text, a brief note should be made regarding the authorship of Isaiah. This book could be considered one of the playgrounds of higher criticism and modern liberal scholarship. Since German scholar J.C. Döderlein invented the theory that Chapters 40–55 were written in sixth-century Babylon rather than by the actual prophet in the eighth-century, various theories and schools of thought have come about that propose up to three different “Isaiahs,” across the pre-exilic, exilic, and post-exilic periods.[4] While conservative evangelicals can allow, to a certain extent, the idea of sacred texts providentially taking shape and final form over hundreds of years into their definition of “inspired,” there is no necessary reason to embrace theories of multiple authors here with Isaiah. As commentator O.T. Allis noted, these theories are merely the product of nineteenth-century rationalism which denies predictive prophecy altogether.[5] J. Alec Motyer argues that the only reason scholars began to consider Chapters 56–66 as post-exilic is due to their beliefs that Chapters 40–55 were exilic. Therefore, he believes that if one demonstrates that 40–55 are indeed pre-exilic (as he does in his commentary), then the whole three-part division and need for multiple authors falls apart.[6]
Narratival Context
In our passage today, we encounter Ahaz, king of Judah, in a dire and terrifying political situation. Rezin, the king of Syria and Pekah, the king of Israel (Ephraim) have joined forces to attack Jerusalem in order to set up their own puppet king, Tabeel (7:1, 6). Their reason for coming against Jerusalem was in hopes of forcing Judah to join their alliance against Assyria. Therefore, the Lord sends to him Isaiah the prophet, to encourage him and call him to faith. However, as we will see, Ahaz is not interested in joining Rezin or Pekah, and he is also not interested in following the Lord’s leading.
Outline
A simple outline for our passage is as follows:
1. The rejection of a sign (7:10–13)
2. The Immanuel sign (7:14–15)
3. The destruction of Judah (7:16–17)
A Walk through the Text
Verses 10–13 10 Moreover the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!” 13 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? (NKJV).
The Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7:10–17 comes on the heels of a previous prophetic message to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:1–9, encouraging Ahaz to stand strong against his enemies, for the schemes of Syria and Ephraim will fail. The prophecy ends with a warning to Ahaz that if he does not believe the Lord, he will not be established. It is not clear how much time has passed since that prophecy (if any at all), but here the Lord speaks to Ahaz again through Isaiah. This time God tells Ahaz to ask of Him a sign (7:11). Ahaz declines this invitation, stating that he was unwilling to “test the Lord” (7:12). In response to this, Isaiah denounces Ahaz and the whole house of David for not only wearying him, but wearying the Lord (7:13).
We can say that the Lord invited Ahaz to ask for a sign, but perhaps it would be better to say that He commanded him to ask. But as with all of God’s commands, this was a gracious one, intending to build up Ahaz’s faith. The sign could have been anything Ahaz could imagine, from the depths of Sheol to the heights of heaven. As Motyer notes, the magnitude of the offer highlights the severity of the crisis Ahaz is in and also the need for him to exercise faith in the Lord.[7] And yet Ahaz declines. The reason given at first seems pious—he refuses to “test” the Lord. While it is true that Scripture forbids wrongly putting God to a test (Dt. 6:16), this prohibition would not apply when the Lord Himself is offering to answer a request for a sign. While Ahaz may want others to think that this refusal to test the Lord is demonstrating true faith (without the need for sight), it is doing quite the opposite—Ahaz clearly is not willing to trust the Lord. Instead, we know from the narrative in 2 Kings that Ahaz was already planning to trust in the might of Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, to fight off his enemies (2 Kgs. 16:7–9). Therefore, he did not need a sign from Yahweh, for he was content to trust in the false gods of wicked men (2 Kgs. 16:10–16).
Before we turn to the great Immanuel prophecy in the next section, we should note that Isaiah’s response to Ahaz has been interpreted two different ways, each influencing the meaning of the rest of the passage. Some take Isaiah (and the Lord through his prophet) to be running out of patience, but still merciful to Ahaz in that He then goes on to provide the sign anyway (7:14). However, the language here shows true exasperation and a shift in the narrative. Notice that Isaiah changes from saying “your God” (7:10, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ) to “my God” (7:13, אֶת־אֱלֹהָֽי). Additionally, Isaiah broadens his audience, turning from Ahaz and instead addressing the whole “house of David.” As Ahaz represents all of God’s people, this could be a natural transition. But as we will see when we consider the next verse, it most likely means that God is abandoning Ahaz and the present Davidic dynasty and looking to the future.[8]
Verses 14–15 14 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 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (NKJV).
Because Ahaz has refused to request a sign of his own choosing, Isaiah informs the whole house of David that the Lord has chosen His own sign for them. The sign is this: a virgin will conceive and bear a Son, and she shall will name Him Immanuel (7:14). This child will eat curds and honey, that He may know [ESV, “when He knows”] to refuse evil and choose good (7:15).
While Ahaz is trusting in the military might of the king of Assyria, the Lord is promising salvation through very different and humble means—a child born of a virgin. As we have noted, it appears that the Lord is turning away from Ahaz and now looking to the future of the Davidic dynasty. This is reinforced again in verse 14, since this sign is specifically given to a plural “you” (לָכֶם), house of David, rather than to Ahaz himself as before.
Here we will consider the Hebrew word translated as “virgin,” almah (עַלְמָה). While almah can mean virgin, it may also be translated as “girl” (of marriageable age), “young woman” (until the birth of her first child), or maiden.[9]However, the translators of the LXX translated almah as parthenos (παρθένος), which carries only the meaning of virgin in Greek. Therefore, since the early church, unbelieving Jews have argued that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy of a virgin birth is incorrect and based on a mistranslation. They argue that if Isaiah wanted to specify a virgin birth, he would have used a different Hebrew word with that exclusive meaning—bethulah (בְּתוּלָה).
However, it is not that simple. In the Old Testament almah is used seven times and not one of its uses refers to a woman who was not a virgin.[10] We can readily admit that bethulah is a stronger word for “virgin” than almah. But this does not mean it was not the natural word for Isaiah to use. This is similar to our English words for “maiden” or “damsel” which do not automatically connote “virgin,” but would be unnatural to use for anyone but an unmarried woman.[11]Additionally, it should be noted that the LXX translating almah as virgin is not necessarily a mistake, but rather indicates that the Hebrew word carried strong connotations of virginity with it at that time. Having established that almah can rightly be translated as “virgin”—or at the very least a young unmarried woman—we can now turn to who this almah is. For those who argue a near-fulfillment of this prophecy, various candidates have been put forth as the bearer of Immanuel.
The most popular choice for the almah is Isaiah’s own wife, “the prophetess,” who gives birth to Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in Isaiah 8. But unless Isaiah’s first wife passed and he remarried (which we are not told), this woman does not fit the description of virgin or at the very least a young unmarried woman. She is given the name “the prophetess” and is not explicitly identified with the woman in Isaiah 7:14. Additionally, their son is not given the name Immanuel, but a different sign name which translates as, “hurry spoil, be swift plunder.”[12]
Another choice for the almah is the wife of Ahaz who gives birth to their son, Hezekiah. This was the argument favored by the Jews in the second-century. This was refuted by St Jerome, as he pointed out that Hezekiah could not be the Immanuel, for he must have been born before Ahaz came to the throne (2 Kings 18:1–2). Additionally, not once is Hezekiah identified with Immanuel, despite his prominent role in Isaiah’s narrative (Isa. 36–39).[13]
The final choice for a near-fulfillment sometimes proposed is that the almah is not one woman, but represents all the faithful women in Judah, focusing primarily on the timing indicated in the prophecy. As Machen put it, according to this proposal, Isaiah is saying something more along the lines of, “Let us suppose that a young woman, as we speak, is conceiving. Before her child comes to the years of discretion the land whose two kings have threatened Judah shall be forsaken, and because of that deliverance the child could be called, ‘God with us.’”[14] This hardly fits the actual prophecy given by Isaiah, which focuses readers attention not primarily on timing but on the fact that a virgin would give birth to a son and call his name Immanuel—signifying miraculously that God is with His people. Additionally, grammatically there is no reason to broaden the prophecy to include women collectively, for in the Hebrew both almah(הָעַלְמָה) and son (ben, בֵּן) are in the singular, with almah having the definite article.
As we have seen, none of these options make sense of the Immanuel prophecy. Additionally, all of these potential fulfillments go against the way in which the prophecy is introduced. The whole passage carries with it a sense of mystery, beginning with the Lord being willing to show Ahaz anything from as low as Sheol all the way up to heaven (7:11). But in what way would a normal birth be a sign that was able to encourage Ahaz’s faith? Knowing of what Isaiah had spoken, could any young maiden name her son Immanuel, thus fulfilling the “sign” with no intervention from God? As Motyer put it, what a “depressing anticlimax” it would be for a woman to simply give birth to a son and name them Immanuel, after the Lord expressed His willingness to essentially move heaven and earth (7:11) and Isaiah’s dramatic outburst of the Lord Himself is giving the sign.[15]
Given the importance of this prophecy, we would expect a near-fulfillment to be more explicitly identified in the text than these options present. However, if the fulfillment of the promise is still to come in the future for the house of David, we would expect exactly what we see in the text—the mother and child’s specific identity is not yet clarified. Immanuel never appears as a character in the narrative, unlike the other sons with special names.
So what did this sign mean to Ahaz and the present Davidic dynasty? While Israel and Syria schemed to conquer Jerusalem and replace him with Tabeel—effectively extinguishing the Davidic line—a promise has been made concerning the future success of the Davidic line. Had Ahaz believed the Lord, he would have seen this and not trusted in Assyria. But his failure to believe means that he received a kind of sign that all unbelievers do, one that can only be grasped by faith, and without faith seems meaningless.
A final reason to reject a near-fulfillment in a normal birth of a son is the unfolding identity of Immanuel in the subsequent chapters. We read in Isaiah 8:8 that the land filled with the threatening outspread wings of the king of Assyria belongs to Immanuel. And then we read in the following verses of the nations being shattered because immanu-el, “God is with us” (8:10).[16] As we continue in the book, we know that the prophecy in Isaiah 9 concerning a son being born is this same Immanuel, for Matthew applies it to Christ in his own Gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 4:14–16). This Son will sit upon the throne of David and his kingdom will have no end (Isa. 9:6–7). He is identified as “Wonderful Counselor,” “Mighty God,” “Everlasting Father,” and “Prince of Peace”—none of which could be reasonably given to a Davidic monarch in Isaiah’s time, or any time, without irony or blasphemy.
According to Carson and Beale, we have no examples of a pre-Christian Jewish text interpreting the meaning of Isaiah 7:14. Couple this reality with the LXX translation of almah as “virgin,” and it is reasonable to deduce that prior to the coming of Christ, some Jews had come to link Isaiah 7–9 together in hopes of a Messianic king, rather than having believing the prophecy to be fulfilled in the time of Ahaz.[17] It is interesting that a contemporary of Isaiah, Micah, likewise prophesies of a coming ruler, showing that long-term Messianic expectations were present (Mic. 5:2).
Before we leave this section, we should consider the diet of Immanuel. Some have interpreted “curds and honey” to refer to prosperous times, given that they are sometimes listed alongside other foods as part of the bounty of the land (Dt. 32:13–15, Job 20:17). But on their own, they indicate rather the opposite, for they do not come in an agricultural harvest but are subsistence foods eaten during a time of famine.[18] We see this in Isaiah 7:21–22, where the remnant in the land “keep alive” a cow and two sheep in order to eat curds, because the land which once had “one thousand vines” is now filled with briars and thorns (Isa. 7:23). The Hebrew verb translated here as “keep alive” (yekhayyeh, יְחַיֶּה) is only used elsewhere in Scripture in dire situations.[19]
Verses 16–17 16 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. 17 The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah” (NKJV).
In these final verses we are told why Immanuel is eating curds and honey, and this passage has been interpreted two different ways by those who see a single fulfillment in Christ. The reason for this is that admittedly they seem to ground the prophecy back in Ahaz’s time, as they speak of the two kings, Rezin and Pekah, along with Assyria.
Some commentators, like John Calvin, understand the “child” in view to no longer be Immanuel, but any child. He supports this interpretation by the lack of a definite pronoun.[20] Thus, the simple meaning of the passage is that the threat will not last longer than it takes for a child to reach an age where they can choose or discern between good and evil. However, this interpretation feels forced and unlikely. Especially since the passage begins with the particle “for” (ki כִּי), which could be even more strongly translated as “Here is why this will be so”—again, explaining why the son of the prophecy, Immanuel, is eating curds and honey.[21] In addition to this, we have repeated the phrase “shall know to refuse” from 7:15 present.
An alternative interpretation maintains continuity between the previous verses, addresses the contemporary references to the kingdoms at war, and still allows the prophecy to be fulfilled in the birth of Christ hundreds of years in the future. Isaiah explains that the lands of Israel and Syria will be destroyed, which is great for Judah. But Assyria will not stop with them, but will then come in judgment upon Judah, a destruction not seen since the day Ephraim departed (7:17). The Hebrew word translated as “forsaken” (azav, עָזַב) is used elsewhere by Isaiah to describe utter destruction, from which only God can save (Isa. 18:6, 27:10, 62:12). Commentator Paul R. House then connects this kind of devastation with covenantal warning passages that use the same word (Lev. 26:43, Ezek. 36:4). By this he interprets Isaiah to be speaking of a future time when Judah and Israel will experience an extreme and terrible loss, connected with their covenantal faithlessness (which we have seen in Ahaz’s conduct).[22] Note that while the destruction comes from the Assyrians, it is ultimately the Lord who brings the king of Assyria upon the people of Judah (7:17).
This destruction came multiple times to Israel and Judah, but Isaiah offers a timeline of sixty-five years, placing the destruction at 671 (Isa. 7:8).[23] After this, Immanuel’s eating of curds and honey will occur, but our text does not specify how long after. Therefore, there is nothing requiring us to see the Immanuel prophecy immediately fulfilled at or right after 671. The point of the prophecy is that despite all that is occurring, the Davidic dynasty will remain. The Jews must continue longing and hoping for a coming Savior. For they know what the prophet Isaiah foretold—the virgin will bear a Son, and His name shall be called, “Immanuel.”
Application
There are multiple applications that we can make from Isaiah 7:10–17 to God’s people today. First, there is a lesson to be learned from the actions of Ahaz. Ahaz was highly blessed by God, for he ruled over God’s people as the king of Judah. In addition to this, God provided Ahaz with a wonderful counselor in Isaiah, who not only was a righteous man but was a prophet and could speak on behalf of God. Despite these blessings, under intense pressure Ahaz turned away from God, and trusted in princes rather than in the strength of the Lord (Ps. 146). And he did so while attempting to put forward an outward piety while all the while hiding his inward sin. We can do this in our own lives in many ways. As one example, our Lord calls us to turn to Him in prayer for all of our needs (Phil. 4:6, Mk. 11:24). But how often do we lack prayer, under the guise of trusting God in His sovereignty, while all the while actually maintaining a stoic unbelief regarding God’s willingness to answer?
Second, even when everything around us seems to be falling apart, our Lord is faithful. Whether this is in our personal lives or on a societal level, God has made promises to His people that He will fulfill. The Jews in the day of Isaiah suffered greatly, there was surely very little hope, but they were given a prophecy and a promise of a coming Savior who would establish an everlasting kingdom. Likewise, just like the Jews under the Old Covenant, we still look forward to our Blessed Hope, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (Tit. 2:13).
Third, Scripture is not always easy to understand or interpret. When preaching our text, the prince of preachers himself, Charles Spurgeon, stated, “It has been said that the passage I have taken for my text is one of the most difficult in all the Word of God. It may be so; I certainly did not think it was until I saw what the commentators had to say about it, and I rose up from reading them perfectly confused.”[24] Indeed, the writer of this paper sympathizes with Spurgeon. However, we can trust in this—that God divinely inspired Matthew to understand this prophecy to be of Christ and record it in his Gospel for all the world to hear and see. All the hermeneutical and interpretive details aside, Scripture is crystal clear—God is now with us. And that is good news.
Works Cited
C.F. Burney, “The ‘Sign’ of Immanuel,’ Journal of Theological Studies, x, 1909.
Charles Spurgeon. The Birth of Christ, spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/the-birth-of-christ.
Gary V. Smith. Isaiah 1–39: The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group).
G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
J. Alec Motyer. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
J. Gresham Machen. The Virgin Birth of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House), 290.
John Calvin. Calvin’s Commentaries: Isaiah, biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/Isaiah/7.htm.
John R. Oswalt. The Holy One of Israel: Studies in the Book of Isaiah (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books).
John F.A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity (New York, NY: University of Cambridge).
Matthew Poole. A Commentary on the Holy Bible: Isaiah, biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/Isaiah.
Paul R. House. Isaiah Volume I: A Mentor Commentary (UK: Mentor).
St Jerome. Praefatio Hieronymi in Librum Isaiae (Columbia University Libraries), epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/292.html.
Todd Bolen. The Messiah in Isaiah 7:14: The Virgin Birth, The Masters Seminary Journal, 33/2, Fall 2022.
William L. Holladay. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publshing Company).
[1] John F.A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity (New York, NY: University of Cambridge), 21, 30.
[2] St Jerome. Praefatio Hieronymi in Librum Isaiae (Columbia University Libraries), https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/292.html.
[3] Matthew Poole. A Commentary on the Holy Bible: Isaiah, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/isaiah.
[4] John F.A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity (New York, NY: University of Cambridge), 178.
[5] J. Alec Motyer. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 25.
[6] Ibid. 25–26.
[7] Ibid. 83.
[8] Gary V. Smith. Isaiah 1–39: The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group), 212.
[9] William L. Holladay. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publshing Company), 274.
[10] J. Gresham Machen. The Virgin Birth of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House), 288.
[11] C.F. Burney, “The ‘Sign’ of Immanuel,’ Journal of Theological Studies, x, 1909, 583.
[12] Gary V. Smith. Isaiah 1–39: The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group), 222.
[13] Paul R. House. Isaiah Volume I: A Mentor Commentary (UK: Mentor), 221.
[14] A paraphrase of Machen’s full rewrite. J. Gresham Machen. The Virgin Birth of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House), 290.
[15] J. Alec Motyer. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
[16] John R. Oswalt. The Holy One of Israel: Studies in the Book of Isaiah (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books), 111.
[17] G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic), 4.
[18] Todd Bolen. The Messiah in Isaiah 7:14: The Virgin Birth, The Masters Seminary Journal,
[20] John Calvin. Calvin’s Commentaries: Isaiah, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/isaiah/7.htm.
[21] Ibid. 292.
[22] Paul R. House. Isaiah Volume I: A Mentor Commentary (UK: Mentor), 224.
[23] Ibid. 225.
[24] Charles Spurgeon. The Birth of Christ, spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/the-birth-of-christ.