Isaiah 7:14
virgin—from a root, “to lie hid,” virgins being closely kept from men’s gaze in their parents’ custody in the East. The Hebrew, and the Septuagint here, and Greek (Mt 1:23), have the article, the virgin, some definite one known to the speaker and his hearers; primarily, the woman, then a virgin, about immediately to become the second wife, and bear a child, whose attainment of the age of discrimination (about three years) should be preceded by the deliverance of Judah from its two invaders; its fullest significancy is realized in “the woman” (Ge 3:15), whose seed should bruise the serpent’s head and deliver captive man (Je 31:22; Mic 5:3). Language is selected such as, while partially applicable to the immediate event, receives its fullest, most appropriate, and exhaustive accomplishment in Messianic events. The New Testament application of such prophecies is not a strained “accommodation”; rather the temporary fulfilment of an adaptation of the far-reaching prophecy to the present passing event, which foreshadows typically the great central end of prophecy, Jesus Christ (Rev 19:10). Evidently the wording is such as to apply more fully to Jesus Christ than to the prophet’s son; “virgin” applies, in its simplest sense, to the Virgin Mary, rather than to the prophetess who ceased to be a virgin when she “conceived”; “Immanuel,” God with us (Jn 1:14; Rev 21:3), cannot in a strict sense apply to Isaiah’s son, but only to Him who is presently called expressly (Is 9:6), “the Child, the Son, Wonderful (compare Is 8:18), the mighty God.” Local and temporary features (as in Is 7:15, 16) are added in every type; otherwise it would be no type, but the thing itself. There are resemblances to the great Antitype sufficient to be recognized by those who seek them; dissimilarities enough to confound those who do not desire to discover them.
7:14 the virgin The Hebrew term here, almah, indicates a young woman of marriageable age. In the ancient world, a young unmarried woman who had reached puberty could reasonably be assumed to be a virgin because of the close social and familial restrictions on her activities.
God with us Means “God with us.” The three symbolic names of these children point to the three phases of God’s future work: imminent judgment, coming restoration, and future redemption (compare Isa 7:3; 8:1).
The concept that God is present among His people is prominent in the OT. The symbolic name Immanuel can be understood as an affirmation of trust in Yahweh, as it is in 8:10. Such affirmations of trust are common in divine promises and prayerful statements of faith (e.g., Psa 46:7). God’s presence among His people was an important theological symbol for Israel (the presence of Yahweh enters the temple in 1 Kgs 8:10–11). The people’s sinfulness puts that privilege in jeopardy. The sign of Immanuel should remind Ahaz that—at least for now—God’s presence remains with Israel.
The name Immanuel symbolizes the full restoration of Yahweh’s broken relationship with His people. While the immediate context of the sign itself points to a short-term fulfillment (see note on Isa 7:10–25), the larger context of Isaiah heavily stresses the future time of redemption and reconciliation between Yahweh and Israel. The coming salvation is depicted in the royal role of the Messiah in 9:2–8 that weaves divine titles into the description of the ideal righteous ruler—the Davidic messiah. The close relationship between messianic and divine roles and titles supports the understanding of Immanuel as a messianic figure. In 11:1–10, the Messiah is given the divine right to judge the nations; His reign inaugurates an era of worldwide peace. The suffering, death, and destruction that entered the world through sin will be replaced with peace, justice, and righteousness as predator and prey live together in harmony (11:6). The time of Immanuel will reflect the perfection of creation as originally formed in the garden of Eden.
7:14–16. Though Ahaz refused to request a sign that would have confirmed the truth of Isaiah’s message, the prophet said God would give him one anyway. The sign was to be a boy named Immanuel. Three elements pertain to the sign: (1) The boy would be born of a virgin (v. 14). (2) He would be raised in a time of national calamity (v. 15; on the curds and honey see comments on v. 22). (3) While he was still a youth, the two-king alliance would be broken (v. 16).
“Virgin” translates ‘almâh, a word used of an unmarried woman of marriageable age. The word refers to one who is sexually mature. It occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 (“maiden”); Exodus 2:8 (“girl”); Psalm 68:25 (“maidens”); Proverbs 30:19 (“maiden”); Song of Songs 1:3 (“maidens”); 6:8 (“virgins”). It also occurs in 1 Chronicles 15:20 (alamoth) and in the title of Psalm 46 (alamoth may be a musical term). The child’s name Immanuel means “God (is) with us.”
Most Bible scholars hold one of three views on the virgin in Isaiah 7:14–16: (1) The boy of whom Isaiah wrote was conceived shortly after Isaiah spoke this message. A young woman, a virgin, married and then had a baby. Before he would be old enough to tell the difference between good and evil the northern Aram-Israel alliance would be destroyed. According to this view the woman was a virgin when Isaiah spoke his prophecy but was not when the boy was born because he was conceived by sexual relations with her husband. Some say this child was born to Isaiah (8:3–4). They point out that 8:1–4 corresponds in a number of ways to 7:14–17. But this view must be rejected because (a) Isaiah’s wife already had a child (Shear-Jashub, v. 3) and so was not a virgin, and (b) the second child born to Isaiah’s wife was not named Immanuel (8:3). In this view Ahaz would have known this woman, and hearing of the child’s birth and his name Immanuel he would understand that Isaiah’s prophecies were correct.
(2) A second view sees the predicted birth as exclusively messianic and the virgin as Mary, Jesus’ mother. It is argued that in Isaiah 7:14 the virgin is said to be with child (lit., “the virgin is or will be pregnant”). It is also argued that Matthew, stressing the fact that Joseph and Mary’s marriage was not consummated till after Jesus’ birth (Matt. 1:18, 25), affirmed that Jesus’ birth fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy (Matt. 1:21–23).
Proponents of this view point out that since Isaiah spoke this prophecy to the house of David (Isa. 7:13) and not just to Ahaz himself, the sign was given not just to the king but to the entire kingly line and the entire nation. However, if the fulfillment did not occur until Joseph and Mary’s day, how does the prophecy relate to Isaiah’s point that the Aram-Israel confederacy would soon be defeated? And how does the birth of the Lord Jesus relate to the eating of curds and honey (v. 15) and to the breaking of the alliance before the boy was old enough to know good and evil? (v. 16) Proponents of this view answer that the time is similar: the two years of Jesus’ babyhood (before He would know between right and wrong) point to the same time segment, two years, within which the Aram-Israel threat would be gone.
(3) A third view, a combination of the first two, sees the prophecy as directed primarily to Ahaz regarding the breaking of the alliance. The ‘almâh was a virgin when Isaiah spoke his message, but then she would marry and have a baby. When the Aram-Israel alliance was broken the boy would still be young. Centuries later the Holy Spirit led Matthew to quote Isaiah 7:14 as a statement that was also true of a virgin birth (i.e., a birth to a woman who was still a virgin). This is the first of many prophecies about the Messiah given by Isaiah. (See the chart “Messianic Prophecies in the Book of Isaiah.”)
The sign must have had some significance for the historical situation in which it was given. The sign involved not only the birth and the boy’s name (Immanuel, “God [is] with us,” would assure the people of God’s presence), but also a designated length of time: before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings … will be laid waste.
Within about three years (nine months for the pregnancy and two or three years until the boy would know the difference between good and evil) the alliance would be broken. It was broken in 732 B.C. when Tiglath-Pileser III destroyed Damascus. After Tiglath-Pileser had defeated Aram and put Rezin to death Ahaz went to Damascus to meet the Assyrian monarch (2 Kings 16:7–10). Ahaz liked an altar he saw in Damascus, and had a sketch of it drawn so a similar altar could be set up in Jerusalem. No wonder Isaiah and God were angry with Ahaz. Even after the alliance had been broken by Tiglath-Pileser Judah had no peace. Though Assyria did not defeat Judah, she had to pay Assyria a heavy tribute. Isaiah foretold the consequences of Ahaz’s attitude (Isa. 7:17–25).
The Virgin-Born Son—“God with Us”
Isaiah 7:10–17
We need not give in detail the historical situation in which the Lord commanded Ahaz to ask him for a sign. A few facts will be helpful, however. Ahaz, the grandson of Uzziah, had seen the king of Aram and the king of Israel bring their armies against Jerusalem in order to conquer Judah and to depose him in favor of a usurper. The allies had not been able to take Jerusalem, but Ahaz was captured by the enemy, 120,000 of his army were killed, and 200,000 captives were carried off. Ahaz was later released, and through the intervention of the prophet Oded the captives had been returned. (See 2 Chronicles 28:5–15.)
Ahaz had suffered all these things because of the Lord’s anger over his promotion of idolatry. (See 2 Chronicles 28:1–5.) Yet Ahaz was not repentant. When he heard that Aram and Israel had not given up their hostile plan against him and Judah, but that the Aramean forces were still encamped in Israelite territory (Ephraim), he and the people were consumed by fear. (Isaiah 7:2) It was then that Ahaz sought the help of Tiglath-Pileser, the king of Assyria. (See 2 Kings 16:7; 2 Chronicles 28:16.) But before Ahaz had taken this step, the Lord intervened to bring an announcement of hope to Ahaz and the people. This is what we have in Isaiah 7:1–9.
But would Ahaz believe? Would he put his trust, not in TiglathPileser, but in the Lord? He refused to believe. Here we see how gracious God is. He had given his revelation that the hostile plan against him would not succeed. (7:7) To the unbelieving Ahaz he offered to give another revelation, a sign. The Lord told him, “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights” (7:11), that is, on the earth or in the sky.
Ahaz responded with the answer of unbelief, “I will not ask.” But he had the audacity to wrap his answer in a pious-looking package, “I will not put the Lord to the test” (7:12). His hypocrisy becomes evident at once when we consider that it is never tempting God to do what the Lord himself tells us to do. Ahaz simply revealed his utter lack of faith by his answer, for the man of faith delights in doing the will of his gracious God, even though what God tells him to do runs counter to reason.
Thereupon Isaiah gave a reproof that was directed not only at Ahaz, but to the court and the whole nation, for he addressed it to the “house of David.” They too, like king Ahaz, had proved themselves faithless. The prophet said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also?” (7:13). Here Isaiah identifies his words with God’s words. Ahaz and the people had tried Isaiah’s patience with their refusal to obey and believe the prophet’s words. But in so doing they had also tried the patience of Isaiah’s God, who had given him the words he spoke to Ahaz. (See Luke 10:16.)
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign” (7:14). Ahaz had refused the opportunity to ask for a sign of his own choosing that would be the Lord’s guarantee of deliverance from Israel and Aram. Now the Lord would take over. He would give a sign of his own choosing. This would be a sign of a greater deliverance in the future, as well as of the deliverance from Israel and Aram already promised. (See 7:7–9 and 16.) For Ahaz it would not be such a sign. By his refusal to ask for a sign he had sealed his own fate. He and his land would be afflicted by Assyria, the power in which he had put his trust. (See 7:16–20; 2 Chronicles 28:16, 20.) Yes, in a few years his son Hezekiah would see the Assyrian army appear before the gates of Jerusalem demanding its surrender. (See Isaiah 36:1, 2.)
But now for the sign itself, the sign designed to confirm the faith of the believing remnant of Judah—and the faith of God’s spiritual Israel, the Church, in all future ages: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (7:14). This is a promise of something extraordinary, yes, miraculous. A virgin would give birth to a child. The word used for ‘virgin’ always designates an unmarried woman. From the very nature of the case, this unmarried woman would also have to be a good woman. A loose woman giving birth to an illegitimate child could not possibly be a sign, a miraculous act performed by God to nourish and bolster the God-given faith.
“And will call him Immanuel.” This statement does not mean that the Wonder-Child would actually bear this name. By calling her child “Immanuel” the mother would testify who he was and what he was to be for men. To prove this, let us anticipate by referring to Matthew’s use of this prophecy. Before quoting Isaiah’s words, Matthew had recorded these words of the angel to Joseph: “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). “Jesus” would be the personal name he would bear.
Now, strenuous efforts have been made to dilute the meaning of “Immanuel.” Some Bible-doubting scholars want to make it simply an assurance that God would be with his people as he had been in the past, blessing them, guiding them, and delivering them from their enemies. Others want to reduce the “God with us” still further by taking it as a reference to God’s general providence.
But both positions collapse in the face of the fact that the name is attached to a particular person, the son born of a virgin. He will be “Immanuel,” God in person among us men. Also making the watering down of “Immanuel” impossible is the passage we shall take up next, Isaiah 9:6. That the same Child is spoken of as in 7:14, there can be no doubt. And the Child is there called “mighty God.” To remove all doubt, we have Matthew 1:22, 23. The Evangelist cites this prophecy of Isaiah to show that it was fulfilled in Jesus and Jesus alone. Jesus Christ is the Child born of a virgin. He is Immanuel, God in the flesh dwelling among men. (John 1:1, 14)
7:14–16 “Virgin” is translated from a Hebrew word used for an unmarried woman who is old enough to be married, one who is sexually mature (see Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Songs 1:3; 6:8). Some have compared this young woman to Isaiah’s young wife and newborn son (8:1–4). This is not likely because she had a child, Shear-jashub, and her second child was not named Immanuel. Some believe that Isaiah’s first wife may have died, and so this is his second wife. It is more likely that this prophecy had a double fulfillment. (1) A young woman from the house of Ahaz who was not married would marry and have a son. Before three years passed (one year for pregnancy and two for the child to be old enough to talk), the two invading kings would be destroyed. (2) Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 to show a further fulfillment of this prophecy in that a virgin named Mary conceived and bore a son, Immanuel, the Christ.
7:14–16 God’s sign to Ahaz was that of a virgin and her son, who would not be more than 12 to 14 years old before Aram and Israel would be captured in 722 B.C. (When the prophecy was spoken, it probably referred to the woman, a virgin at that time, who Isaiah took later as his second wife, 8:1–4, his first wife presumably having died after the birth of Shear-jashub, 7:3.) The virgin of Isaiah’s prophecy is a type of the virgin Mary, who, by the Holy Spirit, miraculously conceived Jesus Christ. See Matt. 1:23. The Hebrew word that is here translated virgin is found elsewhere in the OT in Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8, and in those instances refers only to a chaste maiden who is unmarried. curds and honey. A food of a nomadic people, indicating that the land of Judah would soon be devastated. refuse evil and choose good. An age of moral discrimination. Within 12 years after this prophecy, Damascus was captured by Assyria (732) and Israel had fallen (722).
14. a virgin. The Hebrew word (‘almah) means ‘a young woman,’ and if emphasis on virginity had been required another word (bethulah) would have been used. LXX renders Parthenos, which does mean virgin, but there is no evidence that any significance was attached to it before our Lord’s birth. This is an important point, since hostile critics hold that the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth was suggested by this amongst other passages. The exact contrary seems to be true: our Lord was born of a Virgin, and in consequence the passage applied to Him. The Jewish commentators were undecided as to whether the prophet is referring to his own wife or the wife of Ahaz.
Butter and honey. Rather Curds and wild honey, nourishment suggesting a desolated land.
Immanuel. The mother gave to her child a name which showed her trust in God’s presence with His people—the lesson which Ahaz refused to learn. The name ‘God-is-with-us’ received a new meaning when our Lord was born: in itself it would not suggest the Incarnation.
22, 23. that it might be fulfilled.—The words here quoted from Isaiah are part of a prediction addressed to King Ahaz, concerning a threatened invasion of his territory by the kings of Israel and Syria. (Isa. 7:10–16; 8:11–4.) All of it was fulfilled within a few years except what is here quoted—that a virgin should conceive and bring forth a son, and that his name should be called Emmanuel. When the people of Isaiah’s time saw the fulfillment of part of the prediction they should have looked forward with confidence to the fulfillment of the remainder; and so should the succeeding generations of the Jews down to the time of Jesus. Had they done so they would have been more ready to believe the story here recited by Matthew.
1:22 Twelve times in his Gospel Matthew identifies O.T. prophecies as being fulfilled in the life of Jesus (cf. also 2:15, 23; 3:15; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 27:9). This is a major theme in his Gospel, and one uniquely designed to speak to his Jewish audience.
1:23 There is no question that “virgin” is the correct translation. It is true to Matthew’s text and its LXX source. “Virgin” translates the Greek parthenos found in the LXX in Is. 7:14, there used to render the Hebrew ˓almah. There is no example where it can be demonstrated that ˓almah refers to a young woman who is not a virgin (cf. Gen. 24:43; Song 1:3; 6:8). Furthermore, the Greek word most often rendered “girl,” “maiden,” or “a young woman” (neanis) is not used by Matthew. Instead, he is precise in his use of parthenos, which is translated “virgin,” “maiden,” “pure,” or “chaste” even in classical Greek literature. The LXX also uses parthenos to translate another Hebrew word meaning “virgin” (betulah), again underscoring the fact that parthenos meant “virgin” in the LXX and for Matthew. It is clear that both Matthew and the LXX translators understood that Isaiah was speaking of a virgin when he used ˓almah. And this is precisely the purity which both Matthew and Luke ascribe to Mary (cf. vv. 18–25; Luke 1:26–35). Matthew quotes Isaiah, who addressed King Ahaz (Is. 7:14) when Syria and Israel were threatening to invade Judah. The sign of a child was fulfilled not only immediately in the birth of either (1) Isaiah’s son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (cf. Is. 8:3, 4), or (2) the royal child Hezekiah (715–686 B.C.), whose righteous deeds (2 Kin. 18:4–6) were honored by a period of the revealed presence of God; but messianically as Immanuel, “God with us,” Jesus, the virgin maiden’s Son, who fulfilled the oracle in its truest sense.
1:23 Behold . . . Immanuel: This is a quotation from Is. 7:14. In this verse, the prophet Isaiah consoles King Ahaz of Judah. A coalition of two kings, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel, was opposing Ahaz. Isaiah tells Ahaz not to fear, for the plans of his enemies would not succeed. As a sign to Ahaz, a son would be born of a woman, and before that boy reached the age where he could tell right from wrong, the two kings would no longer be a threat to Ahaz. There are several interpretations of Matthew’s use of this Old Testament prophecy. Some view Isaiah’s prophecy as directly prophetic of Jesus’ birth and nothing else. According to this view, only the miraculous birth of Jesus can be considered a sign. Since the Hebrew noun translated virgin in Is. 7:14 can also mean “young woman,” some have suggested that Isaiah was prophesying about a son born during the lifetime of Ahaz—perhaps Isaiah’s son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (Is. 8:3). Others have interpreted Isaiah’s prophecy as a prediction that a virgin, a contemporary of Isaiah, would marry and have a child. The sign to Ahaz was the sudden dissolution of Rezin and Pekah in the face of Assyria. Even though uncertainty surrounds how this prophecy was fulfilled during Isaiah’s lifetime, Matthew makes it clear that Isaiah’s words find their ultimate fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus, a sign to people of all ages that God was with them.
