As I write this, I am working on lecture units for the book of Isaiah. They are intended for students of the Online School of Biblical Studies (SBS) but will be available to all. This issue is one of these units – to give you a taste! I will let you know when and where the other units are available (they will be on YouTube eventually).
What began as preparation for a lecture turned into another exercise in handling a controversial subject. One verse led to a long and fruitful discussion with the person who had asked me to prepare the lectures.
It reminded me how much we gain by looking at a text from more than one angle as well as by paying attention to interpretations different from our own. Beware of confirmation bias, that is, only listening to those who agree with you!
A Contested Verse
We will look at a contested verse in Isaiah and, among other things, will look to see if its broader context helps us to understand. This includes its historical setting. It also includes the context of the whole Bible, because the verse is quoted in the NT. We will take this into account as well. It will require us to wrestle with a familiar challenge in interpretation: the use of the OT in the NT.
Historical Setting
Let’s set the stage, based on Isaiah 7:1-13. It is the year 734 BC. Assyria is increasingly becoming a threat to reckon with. The northern kingdom of Israel and Syria (or Aram) seek to build an alliance with their neighbours against Assyria. But Ahaz, king of Judah, is unwilling.
Therefore, Israel and Syria together invade Judah and plot an attack on Jerusalem to replace Ahaz. It is in this situation that God sends Isaiah with his son with a word of encouragement: these two kings, of Israel and Syria, will not prevail.
Next, God challenges Ahaz to ask for a sign of his choosing. But Ahaz piously refrains: “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test” (Is. 7:12). We are not told in Isaiah, but we can find the explanation in Kings (2 Ki. 16:7-9): Ahaz has sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, asking for help. He would rather rely on the Assyrians than trust in God.
In Isaiah 7:14-16 (ESV), a sign is given anyway:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.
So, who is this child? We would naturally expect something (someone) in the near future, but then we remember Matthew 1:23, which applies it to Jesus. Is he the fulfilment? Or is there a double fulfilment? By this I mean the idea that the prophecy refers first to a child in Isaiah’s own day and then, in a second and fuller fulfilment, to Jesus.
We could put it like this:
Is [Isaiah] predicting one future birth, or is he giving a sign in his own day that later becomes the pattern through which the Messiah is recognized? (ChatGPT)
Notice the formulation here is more subtle than ‘double fulfilment’.
As mentioned, the person asking me to do these lectures on Isaiah for the online SBS and I had a discussion on, an e-mail exchange (17 July-4 August 2026). Based on the correspondence, I asked ChatGPT to write two cases, which we slightly edited. They follow below.
As you read these two alternatives, given below, try to settle your own position on this question. You may also want to take a look at the continuation of the passage, Isaiah 7:14-9:7. Which case convinces you more, one child or two?
Case A: Isaiah 7:14 Is a Direct Messianic Prophecy
Isaiah 7 opens during a political crisis. King Ahaz fears invasion by Syria and Israel, but Isaiah tells him not to be afraid because their plan will fail. When Ahaz refuses God’s offer of a sign, Isaiah addresses not merely Ahaz but the entire house of David (notice the shift from singular to plural “you” in vv. 13-14). The promise therefore extends beyond one frightened king to David’s royal line.
The sign itself is extraordinary: “The virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Although the Hebrew word almah does not necessarily mean “virgin”, it normally refers to an unmarried young woman, and the ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint), produced long before Jesus, rendered it parthenos (“virgin”). Matthew follows this reading when he speaks of Jesus’ birth: “the virgin shall conceive and bear a son” (Mt. 1:23).
Several features suggest that Isaiah has a unique child in view. The child is given the remarkable name Immanuel (“God with us”), a name that echoes through chapters 7-12. Isaiah 9 refers to a child whose titles far exceed those of any ordinary king: “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” This is the same promised child viewed from another angle. Isaiah 11 then again speaks of this Davidic ruler from Jesse’s line who brings God’s kingdom in its fullness.
One difficulty is that Isaiah 7:15-16 links the child’s early years to the downfall of Syria and Israel, events that occurred in the 8th century BC. However, Isaiah does not specify when the child will be born. The prophecy simply states that before this child reaches a certain age, those kingdoms will be gone. Those events could occur centuries before the birth itself without contradicting the wording.
Matthew therefore does not merely discover a pattern in Isaiah; he identifies Jesus as the child Isaiah predicted. There is only one child. The prophecy awaited its one true fulfilment in the miraculous birth of Christ, the only “Immanuel”, God truly with his people.
Case B: Isaiah 7:14 Has a Historical Fulfilment That Points to Christ
Isaiah 7 addresses a specific historical crisis. Judah faces an attack from Syria and Israel, and Ahaz is terrified. Isaiah therefore offers a sign that God will preserve Jerusalem. Since the sign is given in the context of this immediate crisis, it must have had meaning for Isaiah’s own generation.
In the context of Isaiah 7, verses 14-16 belong together: a child will be born and called Immanuel, and before he reaches a certain stage of development, the lands of the two threatening kings will be deserted. Reading the passage in its historical setting suggests that Isaiah expected a child to be born in his own day.
Who was this child? Suggestions include Isaiah’s own son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Is. 8), Hezekiah, or an otherwise unknown child. None of these proposals is without problems, but they all share the conviction that the prophecy first addressed Isaiah’s contemporaries.
How, then, can Matthew say the prophecy was “fulfilled” in Jesus?
The New Testament often uses ‘fulfilment’ more broadly than simple prediction-and-fulfilment. For example, Matthew applies Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”) to Jesus, even though Hosea was speaking about Israel’s past, not predicting the Messiah. Jesus recapitulates Israel’s story; for example, Jesus is presented as the new Moses and the greater David. In such cases, fulfilment means that an earlier person, event, or pattern reaches its fullest expression in Christ.
On this view, the birth of the child called Immanuel became an earlier instance of God’s promise to be “with us” during a national crisis. Matthew recognizes that Jesus’ birth is the climactic and ultimate expression of that same reality. The correspondence is not accidental but theological. As the earlier child signified God’s presence with Judah, Jesus is Immanuel in the fullest possible sense: God himself present among his people.
Thus Isaiah 7:14 genuinely spoke to the 8th century BC while also preparing readers for a greater “Immanuel” still to come. Matthew is not claiming that Isaiah predicted two births, but that the first birth established a divinely intended pattern whose deepest meaning is revealed in the virgin birth of Christ.
The Birth: How Special? The Child: Who Is It?
We face two key questions. What is the nature of the birth as a sign? And who is the child? First, the sign.
A sign makes us expect at least something unusual. The original offer in Isaiah 7:11 gives Ahaz pretty much card blanche for choosing a sign, any sign. The parallel sign given to Hezekiah appears to be miraculous (Is. 38:7f). It is reasonable to expect this here as well.
“The almah pregnant and giving birth”, so the text says literally. Too bad the Hebrew word is too rare to be certain, but it does not refer to a married woman. And the Septuagint (LXX), the ancient Greek translation, reads virgin. (The ESV does as well, but that may be claiming a bit too much.) Someone at that time (of the LXX translation) probably [notice my caution: probably] thought the birth would be miraculous and had not yet happened. And so did Matthew.
However, if the prophecy concerns a child in the near future, the birth must be far less spectacular than the ESV translation implies.
Or can it be both? After all, some of Matthew’s ‘fulfilments’ at first sight appear to be rather farfetched. And the child is to eat curds and honey before it reaches a certain age, as a consequence of what the Assyrians will have done. And we know that did happen during Isaiah’s lifetime. So why not the child? But then, what about Matthew?
Confusing. No wonder there is a debate.
It is not uncommon to speak of double fulfilment in this context. I find that term problematic, but we will see.
As for the second question, who is the child, I will discuss three possible solutions:
Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Jesus (so double fulfilment)
Maher-shalal-hash-baz (plus an explanation for Matthew’s apparently out-of-context citation)
Jesus
The Child: Double Fulfilment?
So, who is the child? Can it be both: a child born back then in the days of Isaiah and then centuries later Jesus as a second fulfilment? Would this be a good way to do justice to both Isaiah (and his historical context) and Matthew?
This brings us to a bigger question: the use of the OT in the NT, or more specifically, how the NT treats fulfilment of OT prophecy.
The OT in the NT
Perhaps our difficulty with Isaiah 7:14 arises because we assume that prophecy always works like a prediction: something is announced in advance, and later the predicted event happens.
On this understanding of fulfilment, ‘double fulfilment’ is an unconvincing solution. ‘Fulfilled’ means it is done. Why would there be another fulfilment, and how might we know? Double fulfilment can become a way of avoiding the harder question of how the NT author understood the connection.
But Matthew’s use of the Old Testament suggests a richer way of thinking about fulfilment. Just two examples.
And [Joseph] rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Mt 2:14-15, ESV)
This quotes Hosea 11:1. In context, Hosea speaks of the Exodus, an event in the past. Matthew must have known this; Hosea is not predicting a future Messiah. Yet he says that Jesus’ return from Egypt “fulfilled” Hosea’s words. What does he mean? There is nothing predictive about the original statement.
Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.” (Mt. 2:18, ESV)
According to Jeremiah 31:15, Rachel will indeed weep. But the context of fulfilment is the Babylon exile, not an event under later Roman occupation.
So, did Matthew simply ‘rip’ his proof texts out of their context? Is this an arbitrary use of Bible verses?
No. Part of the problem is with us. We have a narrow prediction-fulfilment framework. We assume the prophets made clear and specific predictions, followed by equally specific fulfilments. And then we are startled that Matthew does not fulfil – pun intended – our expectations. I am convinced the NT use is never arbitrary, but it does not follow this simplistic scheme either.
Not All ‘Use’ Equals Fulfilment
We must be careful here and make an important distinction. Many quotations and other uses of the OT in the NT are not about prophecy and fulfilment.
There can be a literary (re-)use of OT words and images. Isaiah himself does this with Leviathan in Isaiah 27:1. Leviathan a mythological monster borrowed, in this case, not from Scripture but from Canaanite (!) mythology, of all sources. But Isaiah gives it his own meaning.
John does this a lot in Revelation. For instance, two lampstands and two olive trees in Revelation 11 echo Zechariah 4. But the meaning is quite different; Revelation is not claiming a repeat or double fulfilment in Revelation 11. In such cases, there is a free borrowing of words or images. But it is without claim of fulfilment and it does not carry persuasive value as a scriptural argument.
If, however, the quotation or allusion is meant to carry weight as an argument, there is usually, perhaps always, solid theology behind it. Let’s look at Matthew’s quotation of Hosea 11:1 again.
When Use Does Claim Fulfilment
As noted, Matthew must have known that Hosea 11:1 is not a prediction at all. He seems to see Jesus reliving Israel’s story and bringing it to its intended completion. Israel came out of Egypt; Jesus comes out of Egypt. Israel passed through the wilderness; Jesus passes through the wilderness. The earlier story becomes a pattern that is repeated, but also surpassed.
Elsewhere, Matthew likewise recognizes patterns and parallels that he sees as fulfilment in a broader sense. Notice that Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, states he has come to fulfil the law and the prophets (Mt. 5:17). Not do but fulfil. Not only the prophets, but also the law. How does one fulfil the law? This also suggest a broader concept of fulfilment.
Matthew presents Jesus as the perfect – and greater – Moses (who brings a superior Torah), the greater David and Servant of the LORD. He is the greater Adam. He is Israel. He fulfils Israel’s mission. Therefore, being Israel, he comes from Egypt. Therefore, he spends 40 days being tested in the desert. Where, different from Israel, Jesus succeeds.
The Psalms in the NT
This way of reading the Old Testament is not limited to Matthew. We see something similar when the early Christians read the Psalms. They also recognize in Jesus is the greater David.
On Pentecost in Acts 2, Peter gets up and quotes Psalm 16: “For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption” (Acts 2:27), interpreting it as David foretelling the resurrection of Jesus.
Have you ever wondered about the logic or Scripture use here? Is this a prediction that the Messiah will be raised from the dead?
However, Peter’s argument – because that is how he uses it – has more going for it than we may think.
First, in Second Temple Judaism – the Jewish world of the centuries before and around the time of Jesus – the Psalms were widely read prophetically and messianically. We need to notice that the argument based on Psalm 16, so startling to us, seems to have made a deep impression on the audience. It ‘worked’. The audience shared an understanding with Peter of how the book of Psalms was to be read.
And their reading makes sense. Why this enormous emphasis on David in the Psalms? Almost half of them carry his name. It is all in the past! Or is it?
It is possible to look at the arrangement of the Psalms as presenting the past as a pattern and key that speaks prophetically of what (or who) is to come: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD!” (Ps. 118:26; cf. Mt. 21:9). That is, the Son of David (so the crowd on Palm Sunday). Notice their interpretation of the event, as fulfilling Psalm 118 and 110.
This, more than direct prophecy (although there is some of that as well), makes the book of Psalms a prophetic book. The place where Israel finds itself when the book of Psalms is completed cannot be the end. David’s life and the promise in 2 Samuel 7 cry out for a greater David to come, cry out that a greater David will come, because the LORD cannot fail to keep his promise (see The Structure of the Book of Psalms and Its Message 2 for more on this).
Here is an additional point to consider. In many cases, the NT text only gives us the actual quote. At first sight it may appear to have been taken out of context. However, there is much more going on than that one verse here and another verse there: whole OT stories are now, after Luke 24:25-32 (where Jesus “opened to us the Scriptures”) and Acts 2 (the coming of the Spirit), seen to correspond with things that have come about. The old is now recognized as a pattern of greater things such as a new exodus, a greater return from exile, and – a greater David.
This reading is sometimes innovative and imaginative. But it is never arbitrary.
The Child: Maher-shalal-hash-baz?
So, who is the child, if we reject a crude or simplistic double fulfilment? Back to Isaiah 7:14. Could we say, based on the above, that this is not a double fulfilment, but a pattern fulfilment? That Isaiah points to a relatively straightforward near fulfilment, and Matthew recognizes in this a pattern that repeats itself, in a greater way, in the conception and birth of Jesus, who is, after all, the ‘real’ or fullest Immanuel?
Of course, this option immediately leads us to the question: which child in Isaiah’s time qualifies as Immanuel?
It cannot be Hezekiah, who was already born. 701 BC, the year of Sennacherib’s invasion, is the 15th year of his reign, and he was 25 when he began to reign.
To claim it was an unknown child is not satisfying; it can neither be proven nor disproven. End of discussion.
But there is a child mentioned just a few paragraphs later, in the wider context. Can it be Maher-shalal-hash-baz?
There are some problems with this solution. The prophecy in Chapter 8 is quite similar yet it is different from Isaiah 7. Both the timeframe and the event foretold differ. From conception to the boy calling his parents (Is. 8:3f) will take less than 2 ½ years. By then, Israel’s plunder from the war will have become plunder again as the Assyrians take it or receive it as tribute. There is no mention of depopulation.
For Immanuel, to know “how to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Is. 7:16) is harder to pin down but will take longer. And what will have happened before is not merely the Assyrian invasion of Israel in 732 BC, but the emptying of the land, which took place in 722 BC or slightly later.
In addition, although translating the Hebrew almah with virgin (ESV) is probably claiming too much, the fact is that Isaiah’s wife, presumably already having given birth to Shear-jashub, does not qualify as an almah.
In addition, the name does not match. And what are we to do with Isaiah 8:8? If Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the child of 7:14, can we rephrase: O Maher-shalal-hash-baz? Perhaps this verse implies a greater figure than that [perhaps].
And then there is Matthew’s reference to a virgin birth. Surely Matthew did not believe that this had happened before and that the birth of Jesus parallels this earlier miraculous birth.
If Matthew 1:23 would read “the [young/unmarried] woman…”, I think the case that there was a child in Isaiah’s days and that Matthew identifies a parallel of sorts in the birth of Jesus as a sign of God with us, would be strong. But his use of the term virgin weakens that case.
The Child: Jesus?
The alternative: In Chapter 8, Isaiah doubles down on the child-as-sign. There are two related, but distinct prophecies. And not only for us, but also to Isaiah’s mind, there are two children. The second prophecy is for the sake of the faithful (not Ahaz). Notice Isaiah’s anger or frustration in Chapter 7. In Isaiah 7:14, he addresses not merely Ahaz, but the house of David. It has failed. But because of the covenantal promise to David, it cannot be replaced. So, a miracle is called for. A better David will be born. But this is a long way off.
Therefore, for the sake of the faithful, there is a second prophecy and a second child that is born soon after and that guarantees the survival of the nation in the present crisis of the 730s. Those who were paying attention to the prophetic word were given a second sign, even if not a miraculous one, but one that was near and provided real comfort and hope – for the near future. But it is a second sign and a second birth.
But then, who is the first child? If we treat Isaiah 7-12 as a coherent unit, in other words, if we widen the context yet again, Isaiah tells us. It is not just Matthew who points to the Messiah. In Isaiah 9:6, a child is born. What child would this be, but the one first announced in Isaiah 7:14?
Admittedly, in 9:6, the child’s name is not called Immanuel. Or is it? Is the fourfold name of the child in Isaiah 9:6 the unfolding, the outcome of God with us?
However, this alternative has its problems as well.
In my view, the problem with this interpretation is not the long delay, of centuries, if the boy is Jesus. That is unexpected, but not unthinkable. The text claims certain thing will happen before the boy reaches a certain age. It does not indicate how many years before that will happen. Rather than call this misleading, let’s say: intentional ambiguity.
The problem is that the boy will eat curds and honey because the land will have been largely depopulated. The text appears to establish a causal relationship between the Assyrian invasion and the boy’s diet. We don’t know that about Jesus and the land was certainly no longer deserted in his days. This is the weakest point of an interpretation that sees the sole fulfilment in Christ. We would have to claim it means something like: before the Messiah comes, Ephraim will have disappeared as a nation. That is rather vague, compared with eating curds and honey.
An Aside: Refusing Evil, Choosing Good
Allow me a digression at this point. There is a fascinating feature to the announcement made in 7:14-17: a repetition defining the time frame, the minimum time involved. Before the boy “knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good”, this exact phrase appears twice. The repetition is unnecessary for comprehension. And why describe his age in these terms?
Because Ahaz has chosen the evil. And the boy will certainly come too late to reverse this choice or prevent its consequences. Before he is ready to choose, and choose better than Ahaz, judgment through the Assyrians will have taken place.
The boy will come too late now. Or rather, judgment will come first. Only after that, the boy will be there to choose the good and refuse the evil, doing better than Ahaz did. The phrase is therefore not merely a time indicator. It is an implied rebuke for Ahas.
Our Dilemma
Back to the difficulty with the view that 7:14 is straightforwardly messianic. I still prefer this view, because I see in Isaiah 9:6, to us a child is born, a crucial key to the identity of the child, given by Isaiah himself. And notice the preceding verse, 9:5: “the boot of the tramping warrior”, the “garment rolled in blood”. Like 7:14-17, this too seems to point to an Assyrian context. But it cannot be.
Therefore, my preference is not primarily because of Matthew but based on the wider context in Isaiah. But I can fully understand if you adopt the other side of the argument. In summary:
Case A’s weakness: What does one do with the 8th-century setting and the references to curds and honey, seeing they are caused by the Assyrian invasion that leads to this abundance? Problematic for this view is the immediate context.
Case B’s weakness: Aren’t the children of 7:14 and 9:6 identical? And why does Matthew rest so much theological weight on the Septuagint’s “virgin”? Problematic for this view is the wider context.
It is not untypical: no matter which option you choose, in the end there is one piece, perhaps more, that does not fit. There remains something that is unsatisfactory.
But there is this: In the crucible of Ahaz’s failure and the Assyrian crisis, rather than sink in despair, Isaiah holds on to the divine promise about David – God will find a way to keep his promise – and perhaps he stumbles upon a solution: God himself has to provide a Son of David for this to have any chance of working out.
Better yet, although Isaiah probably did not see that far: God himself will have to be that son.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
