Jesus was immanuel

JESUS WAS IMMANUEL
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Isaiah7:14 14Thereforethe LORD himself will give
you a sign: The virgin will conceiveand give birth to a
son, and will call him Immanuel.
New Living TranslationAll right then, the Lord
himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will
conceivea child! She will give birth to a son and will
call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’).
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Pulpit Commentary Homiletics
The PresenceOfGod
Isaiah7:14
W. Clarkson
We naturally ask the question - In what ways is God ours? "Immanuel;" in
what respectis he one of whom we can saythat he is "Godwith us;" how and
where is his presence to be found and to be felt? There are many answers to
this question; there is -

I. THE ANSWER OF SACRED POETRY. Thatthe presence of God is seenin
the results of his Divine handiwork, in the foundations and pillars of the earth,
in the "meanestflowerthat blows," in the varied forms of life; that it only
needs a true imagination to see him in all the objects and scenes ofhis creative
power; that "everybush's afire with God, but only he who sees takesoffhis
shoes."
II. THE ANSWER OF PHILOSOPHY. That his presence is in all-
surrounding nature, in which he is immanent; that though all nature does not
include Deity, the Divine poweris present in all things, sustaining, energizing,
renewing; the "laws of nature" are the regular activities of God.
III. THE ANSWER OF NATURAL RELIGION. Thathe is with us in his
omnipresent and observant Spirit; that he fills immensity with his presence,
being everywhere and observing everything, and taking notice of every human
soul; that the Infinite One is he who cannotbe absent from any sphere or be
ignorant of any action.
IV. THE ANSWER, OF THE EARLIER REVELATION. That his presence is
in his overruling providence; that God is with us, not only "besetting us
behind and before," not only "understanding our thought afar off," but also
"laying his hand upon us," directing our course, ordering our steps (Psalm
37:23), making plain our path before our face, causing all things to work
togetherfor our good, defending us in danger, delivering us from trouble,
establishing us in life and strength and joy (see Genesis 39:2;1 Samuel 3:19; 1
Samuel 18:12;2 Kings 18:7; Matthew 28:20).
V. THE ANSWER OF THE LATER REVELATION. That his presence was
in his Divine Son. The time came when the words of the text proved to have
indeed "a springing and germinant fulfillment;" for a virgin did conceive, and
bring forth a Son, and he was the "Immanuel" of the human race, God with
us - that One who dwelt amongstus, and could say, "He that hath seenme
hath seenthe Father." They who walkedwith him and watchedhis life, and
who understood and appreciatedhim, recognizedthe spirit, the character, the
life, of God himself. In his mind were the thoughts, in his words the truth, in
his deeds the principles, in his death the love, in his mission the purpose, of

God. When "Jesus was here among men," God was with us as never before, as
never since.
VI. THE ANSWER OF OUR OWN CONSCIOUSNESS.Thathis presence is
in and through his Holy Spirit. God is with us because in us; present,
therefore, in the deepest, truest, most potent, and influential of all ways and
forms; in us, enlightening our minds, subduing our wills, enlarging our hearts,
uplifting our souls, strengthening and sanctifying our spiritual nature. Then,
indeed, is he nearestto us when he comes unto us and makes his abode with
us, and thus "dwells in us and we in him." Our duty, which is our privilege, is
(1) to realize, increasingly, the nearness of the living God;
(2) to rejoice, practically, in the coming of God to man in the presence ofthe
virgin-born Immanuel;
(3) to gain, by believing prayer, the presence ofthe Divine Spirit in the
sanctuary of our own soul. - C.
Biblical Illustrator

Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign.
Isaiah7:14
God's sign to King Ahaz
D. M. Sweets.
Perhaps more perplexity has been produced among commentators by this
passagethan by any other in Old Testamentprophecy. The chief difficulties of
the passage maybe statedas follows:Does the prophecy refer to some event
which was soonto occur, or does it refer exclusivelyto some event in the
distant future? If it refers to some event which was soonto occur, what event
was it? Who was the child intended, and who the virgin who should bring
forth the child?
1. The first step toward the unravelling of the prophet's meaning is to
determine the exactsignificance of the words. What, then, is the meaning of
the word ‫,תוא‬ which is translated"sign"? Delitzschdefines the word as "a
thing, event, or act which may serve to guarantee the Divine certainty of some
other thing, event, or act." It does not of necessitydenote a miracle. For
example, in Genesis 17:11, circumcisionis said to be a "sign," ortoken. The
context, togetherwith the nature of the thing, event, or act, must decide
whether the ‫תוא‬ is a miracle or not. All that is necessaryto constitute a "sign"
to Ahaz is that some assurance shallbe given which Jehovahalone can give.
And the certain prediction of future events is the prerogative of Jehovah
alone.
2. We turn now to the word ‫ע‬ ַ‫ל‬ְ‫,הָמ‬ translated"virgin" and shall try to find its
exactmeaning. The derivation of it from ‫ע‬ָ‫,הַמ‬ to hide, to conceal, is now
generallyabandoned. Its most probable derivation is from ‫ע‬ָ‫,הַמ‬ to grow, to be
strong, and hence the word means one who has come to a mature or
marriageable age. Hengstenberg contends that it means one in an unmarried
state;Gesenius holds that it means simply being of marriageable age, the age
of puberty. Howeverthis may be, it seems mostnatural to take the word in
this place as meaning one who was then unmarried and who could be calleda
virgin. But we must guard againstthe exegeticalerrorof supposing that the

word here used implies that the person spokenof must be a virgin at the time
when the child is born. All that is said is that she who is now a virgin shall
bear a son.
3. Let us now proceedto considerthe interpretation of the prophecy itself.
The opinions which have generally prevailed with regard to it are three —(1)
That it has no reference to any Messianic fulfilment, but refers exclusively to
some event in the time of the prophet.(2) That it has exclusive and immediate
reference to the Messiah, thus excluding any reference to any event which was
then to occur. On this view, the future birth of the Messiahfrom a virgin is
made the sign to Ahaz that Jerusalemshall he safe from a threatened
invasion(3) That the prophet is speaking ofthe birth of a child which would
soontake place of someone who was then a virgin; but that the prophecy has
also a higher fulfilment in Christ. This last view we regards the only tenable
one, and the proof of it will be the refutation of the other two. The following
reasons are presentedto show that the prophecy refers to some event which
was soonto occur.
1. The context demands it. If there was no allusion in the New Testamentto
the prophecy, and we should contemplate the narrative here in its
surrounding circumstances, we should naturally feel that the prophet must
mean this. If the seventh and eighth chapters, connectedas they are, were all
that we had, we should be compelled to admit a reference to something in the
prophet's time. The recordin Isaiah8:1-4, following in such close connection,
seems to be intended as a public assurance ofthe fulfilment of what is here
predicted respecting the deliverance of the land from the threatened invasion.
The prediction was that she who is a virgin shall bear a son. Now Jehovah
alone can foreknow this, and He pronounces the birth of this child as the sign
which shall be given.
2. The thing to be given to Ahaz was a signor tokenthat a present danger
would be averted. How could the fact that the Messiahwould come seven
hundred years later prove this?Let us now look at the reasons forbelieving
that it contains also a reference to the Messiah.

1. The first argument we present is derived from the passagein Isaiah9:7.
There is an undoubted connectionbetweenthat passage andthe one under
consideration, as almostall critical scholars admit. And it seems that nothing
short of a Messianic reference willexplain the words. Some have assertedthat
the undoubted and exclusive reference to Messiahin this verse (Isaiah 9:7)
excludes any localreference in the prophecy in Isaiah7:14. But so far from
this being the ease,we believe it is an instance of what Baconcalls the
"springing, germinant fulfilment of prophecy." And we believe that it can be
proved that all prophecies take their start from historicalfacts. Isaiahhere
(Isaiah 9:7) drops the historical drapery and rises to a mightier and more
majestic strain.
2. The secondand crowning argument is takenfrom the language ofthe
inspired writer Matthew (Matthew 1:22, 23).
(D. M. Sweets.)
Who was the "virgin" and who the son
D. M. Sweets.
? —
1. Some have supposedthat the wife of Ahaz was meant by the "virgin," and
that his son Hezekiahwas the child meant. There is an insuperable difficulty
againstthis view. Ahaz's reign extended over sixteen years (2 Kings 16:2), and
Hezekiahwas twenty-five years old when he succeededAhaz (2 Kings 18:2).
Consequently, at this time Hezekiah could not have been less than nine years
old. It has been supposedthat Ahaz had a secondwife, and that the sonwas
hers. This is a mere supposition, supported by nothing in the narrative, while
it makes Isaiah8:1-4 have no connectionwith what precedes or follows.
2. Others have supposed that some virgin who was then presentbefore Ahaz
was designated, and they make the meaning this: "As surely as this virgin
shall conceive and bear a son, so surely shall the land be forsakenofits

kings." This is too vague for the definite language used, and gives no
explanation of the incident in chap. 8. about Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
3. Another opinion is that the virgin was not an actual but an ideal virgin."
"Michaelis thus presents this view: "By the time when one who is yet a virgin
can bring forth (i.e., in nine months), all will be happily changedand the
present impending dangerso completelypassedawaythat if you were to name
the child you would call him Immanuel." Surely this would not be a sign or
pledge of anything to Ahaz. Besides, it was not a birth possible, but an actual
birth, which was spokenof.
4. But the view which is most in keeping with the entire context, and which
presents the fewestdifficulties, is that the prophet's own son is intended. This
view does require the supposition that Isaiah married a secondwife, who at
the time of this prophecy was still a virgin and whom he subsequently
married. "But there is no improbability in the supposition that the mother of
his son, Shear-jashub, was deceased, andthat Isaiah was about againto be
married. This is the only supposition which this view demands. Such an
occurrence was surelynot uncommon. All other explanations require more
suppositions, and suppositions more unnatural than this. Our supposition
does no violence to the narrative, and certainly falls in best with all the facts.
We would then identify Immanuel (as Ahaz and his contemporaries would
understand the name to be applied) with Maher-shalal-hash-baz. With this
view harmonises what the prophet says in Isaiah8:18: "Behold, I and the
children whom Jehovahhath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel
from Jehovahof hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion." It is no objection to
this view that anothername than "Immanuel" was given to the child. It was a
common thing to give two names to children, especiallywhenone name was
symbolic, as Immanuel was. Jesus Christwas never calledImmanuel as a
proper name, though almost all scholars agree thatthe prophecy referred to
Him in some sense.
(D. M. Sweets.)
A double tolerance in Isaiah's prophecies

D. M. Sweets.
The careful, critical student of Isaiahwill find this thing common in his
writings, namely, that he commences with a prophecy having reference to
some remarkable delivery which was soonto occur, and terminates it by a
statementof events connectedwith a higher deliverance under the Messiah.
His mind becomes absorbed;the primary object is forgottenin the
contemplation of the more remote and glorious event.
(D. M. Sweets.)
The virgin
Prof. A. F. Kirkpatrick., Speaker'sCommentary., Prof. W. J. Beecher, D. D.
The Hebrew word rendered "virgin" in the A.V. would be more accurately
rendered "damsel." It means a young womanof marriageable age, andis not
the word which would be naturally used for virgin, if that was the point which
it was desired to emphasise.
(Prof. A. F. Kirkpatrick.)Our English word "maiden" comes as near,
probably, as any to the Hebrew word.
(Speaker's Commentary.)The Hebrew lexicons tell us that the word almah,
here translated virgin, may denote any mature young woman, whether a
virgin or not. So far as its derivation is concerned, this is undoubtedly the
case;but in Biblical usage, the word denotes a virgin in every case where its
meaning can be determined. The instances are, besides the text, that in the
accountof Rebekah(Genesis 24:43), thatof the sisterof Moses(Exodus 2:8),
the word used in the plural (Psalm 68:25, 26;Song of Solomon 1:3; Song of
Solomon6:8), its use in the titles of Psalms (Psalm46; 1 Chronicles 15:20),
and its use in Proverbs 30:19. The last passageis the one chiefly relied on to
prove that the word may denote a woman not a virgin; but, "the wayof a man
with a maid" there spokenof is something wonderful, incapable of being
tracedor understood, like the way of an eagle in the air, a serpent on a rock, a
ship in the sea, and it is only in its application to that wonderful human

experience, first love betweena man and a virgin, that this description can
find a full and complete significance. The use of the word in the Bible may not
be full enough in itself to prove that almah necessarilymeans virgin, but it is
sufficient to show that Septuaginttranslators probably chose deliberately and
correctly, when they chose to translate the word, in this passage, by the Greek
word that distinctively denotes a virgin, and that Matthew made no mistake in
so understanding their translation.
(Prof. W. J. Beecher,D. D.)
Deliverance by a lowly agent
Prof. S. R. Driver, D. D.
Not Ahaz, not some high-born son of Ahaz's house, is to have the honour of
rescuing his country from its peril: a "nameless maiden of lowly rank"
(Delitzsch) is to be the mother of the future deliverer. Ahaz and the royal
house are thus put aside;it is not till Isaiah 9:7 — spokenatleasta year
subsequently — that we are able to gatherthat the Delivereris to be a
descendantof David's line.
(Prof. S. R. Driver, D. D.)
God's sign to Ahaz
J. A. Alexander.
The king having refused to ask a sign, the prophet gives him one, by renewing
the promise of deliverance (vers. 8, 9), and connecting it with the birth of a
child, whose significantname is made a symbol of the Divine interposition,
and his progress a measure of the subsequent events. Instead of saying that
God would be present with them to deliver them, he says the child shall be
calledImmanuel (God with us); instead of mentioning a term of years, he
says, before the child is able to distinguish goodfrom evil; instead of saying
that until that time the land shall lie waste, he represents the child as eating

curds and honey, spontaneous products, here put in opposition to the fruits of
cultivation. At the same time, the form of expressionis descriptive. Instead of
saying that the child shall experience all this, he represents its birth and
infancy as actually passing in his sight; he sees the child brought forth and
named Immanuel; he sees the child eating curds and honey till a certainage.
But very different opinions are held as to the child here alluded to. Some think
it must be a child about to be born, in the course of nature, to the prophet
himself. Others think that two distinct births are referred to, one that of
Shear-jashub, the prophet's son, and the other Christ, the Virgin's Son. Yet
others see only a prophetic reference to the birth of Messiah.
(J. A. Alexander.)
A prediction of the miraculous conceptionof Jesus Christ
J. A. Alexander.
While some diversity of judgment ought to be expectedand allowed, in
relation to the secondaryquestion(of the child of the period that is referred
to), there is no ground, grammatical, historical, or logical, fordoubt as to the
main point, that the Church in all ages has beenright in regarding this
passageas a signal and explicit prediction of the miraculous conceptionand
nativity of Jesus Christ.
(J. A. Alexander.)
The figure of Immanuel an ideal one
Prof. S. R. Driver, D. D.
The language ofIsaiah forces upon us the conviction that the figure of
Immanuel is an ideal one, projectedby him upon the shifting future — upon
the nearerfuture in chap. 7, upon the remoter future in chap. 9, but grasped
by the prophet as a living and real personality, the guardian of his country
now, its deliverer and governorhereafter. The circumstances under which the

announcement is made to Ahaz are such as apparently exclude deliberation in
the formation of the idea; it is the unpremeditated creationof his inspired
imagination. This view satisfies allthe requirements of the narrative. The
birth of the child being conceivedas immediate affords a substantial ground
for the assurance conveyedto Ahaz; and the royal attributes with which the
child speedily appears to be endued, and which forbid hit identification with
any actualcontemporary of the prophet's, become at once intelligible. It is the
Messianic King, whose portrait is here for the first time in the Old Testament
sketcheddirectly.
(Prof. S. R. Driver, D. D.)
Immanuel, the Messiah
F. Delitzsch.
It is the Messiahwhomthe prophet here beholds as about to be born, then in
chap. 9 as born, and in chap. 11 as reigning.
(F. Delitzsch.)
What sign could the distant birth of Christ be to Ahaz
F. T. Bassett, M. A.
? — The answeris plain, as evidenced by the prophet turning away from the
king who repudiated, his privileges to the "house of David," to which in all its
generations the promise was given. The king was endeavouring to bring about
the destructionof "the land," but his efforts in that direction would be useless
until the destiny of the house of David was fulfilled. The virgin must bear the
promised Son; Judah is immortal till that event is accomplished. It matters
not whether it is near or far, the family and lineage of David must survive till
then. Hence the signwas plain enough, or ought to have been, to Ahaz and the
people in general. The closing portion of this sectionof Scripture fully

disclosesthe destruction that should befall Judah as well as Israel, but the
final fall of Judah is after the birth of Immanuel.
(F. T. Bassett, M. A.)
The virgin mother
F. H. Woods, B. D.
To maintain that Isaiahdid not mean to saythat a certain Personin the future
was to be born of a virgin, is not the same thing as to hold that Christ was not
so born as a fact.
(F. H. Woods, B. D.)
The mystery of the sign
F. Delitzsch.
The "sign" is on the one side a mystery staring threateningly at the house of
David, and on the other side it is a mystery rich in comfort to the prophet and
all believers; and it is couchedin such enigmatic terms in order that they who
harden themselves may not understand it, and in order that believers may so
much the more long to understand it.
(F. Delitzsch.)
A new thing in the earth
Anon.
(vers. 10-16):—
I. THE PLEDGE PROPOSED.

1. The condescensionwhich God displayed on this occasionwas very
remarkable.
2. There may be a semblance of regard for the honour of God, while the heart
is in a state of hostility againstHim.
3. God may sustain a certain relationship to those who are not His in reality.
II. THE INDIGNANT REBUKE ADMINISTERED. (Ver. 13.)
1. The persons to whom it was addressed. Notthe king only, but the whole
nation; which shows that they, or a large portion of them, were like-minded
with their ungodly ruler. They are called"the house of David," a designation
which was doubtless intended to remind them of his character, andthe great
things which God had done for him. Well would it have been if he by whom
David's throne was now occupiedhad been imbued with David's spirit, and
walkedin David's ways;and that his influence had been exerted in inducing
his subjects to do so likewise.
2. The feeling by which it was prompted. It was evidently that of holy
indignation.
3. The grounds on which it rested. There were two things especiallyby which
God was dishonoured on this occasion.(1)Unbelief. Nothing casts a greater
indignity upon the Divine characterthan for His word to be distrusted.(2)
Hypocrisy. Far better to bid open defiance to the MostHigh, and saywith
Pharaoh, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice?" than pretend to
serve Him while we are resolvedto actin opposition to His will.
III. THE GLORIOUS EVENT PREDICTED.As to this striking prediction, in
itself considered, there are severalparticulars which it sets before us —
1. The miraculous conceptionof Christ.
2. The essentialDeity of Christ.
3. The design of the coming of Christ. For Him to be called "Immanuel, God
with us," shows that He appearedto espouse ourcause.
4. The lowly condition of Christ. "Butter and honey shall He eat," etc.

5. The moral purity of Christ. Although the expression, "before the child shall
know to refuse the evil, and choosethe good," has literal reference to His
attaining the age of discernment, yet it may be applied with specialpropriety
to the spotless sanctityof His character. He knew, in a sense in which no one
else ever knew, how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
(Anon.)
The birth of Christ
I. THE BIRTH OF CHRIST.
1. We see here a miraculous conception.
2. Notice next, the humble parentage. Thoughshe was not a princess, yet her
name, Mary, by interpretation, signifies a princess;and though she is not the
queen of heaven, yet she has a right to be reckonedamongstthe queens of
earth; and though she is not the lady of our Lord, she does walk amongstthe
renowned and mighty women of Scripture. Yet Jesus Christ's birth was a
humble one. Strange that the Lord of glory was not born in a palace!Let us
take courage here. If Jesus Christwas born in a manger in a rock, why should
He not come and live in our rockyhearts? If He was born in a stable, why
should not the stable of our souls be made into a habitation for Him? If He
was born in poverty, may not the poor in spirit expect that He will be their
Friend?
3. We must make one more remark upon this birth of Christ, and that remark
shall be concerning a glorious birthday. With all the humility that surrounded
the birth of Christ, there was yet very much that was glorious, very much that
was honourable. No other man ever had such a birthday as Jesus Christ had.
Of whom had prophets and seers everwritten as they wrote of Him? Whose
name is graven on so many tablets as His? Who had such a scrollof prophecy,
all pointing to Him as Jesus Christ, the God-man? Then recollect, concerning
His birth, when did God ever hang a fresh lamp in the sky to announce the
birth of a Caesar? Caesars maycome, and they may die, but stars shall never
prophesy their birth. When did angels ever stoopfrom heaven, and sing

choralsymphonies on the birth of a mighty man? Christ's birth is not
despicable, evenif we consider the visitors who came around His cradle.
II. THE FOOD OF CHRIST. "Butter and honey shall He eat, that He may
know to refuse the evil, and choosethe good." Our translators were certainly
very goodScholars, and God gave them much wisdom, so that they craned up
our language to the majesty of the original, but here they were guilty of very
greatinconsistency. I do not see how butter and honey can make a child
choose good, andrefuse evil. If it is so, I am sure butter and honey ought to go
up greatly in price, for goodmen are ver much required. But it does not say,
in the original, "Butter and honey shall He eat, that He may know to refuse
the owl, and choose the good," but, "Butter and honey shall He eat, till He
shall know how to refuse the evil, and choosethe good," or, better still,
"Butter and honey shall He eat, when He shall know how to refuse the evil,
and choose the good." We shall take that translation, and just try to elucidate
the meaning couchedin the words. They should teach us —
1. Christ's proper humanity. When He would convince His disciples that He
was flesh, and not spirit, He took a piece of a broiled fish and of a honeycomb,
and ate as others did.
2. The butter and honey teachus, again, that Christ was to be born in times of
peace. Suchproducts are not found in Judea in times of strife; the ravages of
war sweepawayall the fair fruits of industry.
3. There is another thought here. "Butter and honey shall He eat when He
shall know how to refuse the evil, and choosethe good." This is to teachus the
precocityof Christ, by which I mean that, even when He was a child, even
when He lived upon butter and honey, which is the food of children, He Knew
me evil from the good.
4. Perhaps it may seemsomewhatplayful, but I must say how sweetit is to my
soul to believe that, as Christ lived upon butter and honey, surety butter and
honey drop from His lips. Sweetare His words unto our souls, more to be
desired than honey or the honeycomb.

5. And perhaps I ought not to have forgottento say, that the effectof Christ's
eating butter and honey was to show us that He would not in His lifetime
differ from other men in His outward guise. Butter and honey Christ ate, and
butter and honey may His people eat;nay, whatsoeverGodin His providence
gives unto them, that is to be the food of the child Christ.
III. THE NAME OF CHRIST. "And shall call His name Immanuel."
1. The Virgin Mary called her son Immanuel that there might be a meaning in
His name
2. Would you know this name most sweetlyyou must know it by the teaching
of the Holy Spirit.
( C. H. Spurgeon.)
The responsibility of revelation
E. T. Marshall, M. A.
1. This Annunciation to Ahaz was a great opportunity for him — a crisis in
his spiritual life. He was getting entangledin idolatrous ways, involved in
disloyal relations with the Assyrian monarchy, and had alreadyseriously
compromised himself in sacrilegious appropriationof temple treasure. And
here was a goldenopportunity to break through his bends, and casthimself
loose, once forall from his unworthy associations. He was only askedto trust
on for a little while longer, to watch events, and, as they fell out in a certain
direction, to recognise thatthey were of God's specialordering, and that they
constituted a claim on his obedience and trust in God. But he was incapable of
profiting by God's goodwilltowards him. He rejectedthe Divine overtures of
prosperity and peace;and, while Godstill carried out the dictates of His
purpose, they came to Ahaz without blessing and without relief. His enemies
were removed, but a direr foe stoodin their place;he could not but learn that
God was faithful, but the word that he compelledGod to keepwas a word of
retribution.

2. And if we were capable of the combined mental and spiritual effort that
such a course would require, and were to sit down calmly and without
prejudice to dissectour past lives, and with unerring judgment were to
separate cause fromeffect in every case, andto trace eachimportant issue of
life to its true turning point, how often, probably, should we find that the
unsatisfactoryfeatures of the pastwere largely due to our neglectof some
revelation — some annunciation — of God! By experience, by example, by
warning, by discipline; by difficulties significantly placed in our path, or by
clearancesunexpectedlybut unmistakably made; by words in season, out of
season;by a thousand things, and in countless ways, we have had
annunciations from God — plain indications of His will and pleasure
concerning us, and no indistinct prophecies of things that shall be hereafter.
And our judgment upon a review of the whole is this — that our true
happiness and our genuine successhave been in very exactproportion to our
faithfulness or our unfaithfulness in reading the signs of God.
(E. T. Marshall, M. A.)
The mercy of God
J. Donne.
The first word of this text joins the angerof God and His mercy together. God
chides and rebukes the king Ahaz by the prophet; He is angry with him, and
therefore" He will give him a sign — a sealof mercy.
I. GOD TAKES ANY OCCASION TO SHOW MERCY.
II. THE PARTICULAR WAY OF HIS MERCYDECLARED HERE. "The
Lord shall give you a sign."
III. WHAT THIS SIGN WAS. "Behold a virgin," etc.
(J. Donne.)
Miracle of miracles

King Ahaz saith, I will not tempt God, and, making religionhis pretence
againstreligion, being a most wilful and wickedman, would not. We may
learn by this wretched king that those that are leastfearful before danger are
most basely fearful in danger (ver. 2). We may see the conflict betweenthe
infinite goodnessofGod and the inflexible stubbornness of man; God's
goodness striving with man's badness. When they would have no sign, yet God
will give them a sign. Behold.
(1)As a thing presented to the eye of faith.
(2)As a matter of greatconcernment.
(3)As a strange and admirable thing.It is atheisticalprofaneness to despise
any help that God in His wisdom thinketh necessaryto support our weak faith
withal. The house of David was afraid they should be extinct by these two
greatenemies of the Church; but, saith Isaiah, "A virgin of the house of David
shall conceive a son," and how then can the house of David be extinct? Heaven
hath said it; earth cannot disannul it. God hath said it, and all the creatures in
the world cannot annihilate it. How doth friendship betweenGodand us arise
from hence, that Christ is Godin our nature?
1. Sin, the cause ofdivision, is taken away.
2. Our nature is pure in Christ, and therefore in Christ Godloveth us.
3. Christ being our head of influence conveyeththe same Spirit that is in Him
to all His members, and, little by little, by that Spirit, purgeth His Church and
maketh her fit for communion with Himself.
4. The secondperson is God in our nature for this end, to make God and us
friends.
( Sibbes, Richard.)
Christ in prophecy
H. L. Hastings.

You will find that the presence ofone Personpervades the whole book If you
go into a British navy yard, or on board a British vessel, and pick up a piece of
rope, you will find that there is one little red thread which runs through the
whole of it — through every foot of cordage which belongs to the British
government; so, if a piece of rope is stolen, it may be cut rote inch pieces, but
every piece has the mark which tells where it belongs. It is so with the Bible.
You may separate it into a thousand parts, and yet you will find one thought
— one greatfact running through the whole of it. You will find it constantly
pointing and referring to one greatPersonage. Around this one mighty
Personagethis whole book revolves. "To Him give all the prophets witness."
(H. L. Hastings.)
Immanuel
Shear-jashub; Maher-shalal-hash-baz;Immanuel
F. H. Woods, B. D.
The three names taken togetherwould mean this — the Assyrians would spoil
the countries of Syria and Ephraim, and though they would threaten Judah,
God would be with His people, and save them, and so a remnant would For
left which would return at once to religious faith and to national prosperity.
For these two lastare almostalways associatedin the prophet's view.
(F. H. Woods, B. D.)
A prophecy of the Messiah
Canon Ainger.
When Jesus claimed to be the Sonof God, the Jews saw quite clearlythat this
was indeed nothing less than the claim to be Divine, and they cried out that
this was blasphemy. And what was His reply? Jesus reminded His hearers
that the earliestjudges and leaders of the people of Israel, as testified by the
language oftheir Scriptures, had been calledgods. "Jesus answeredthem, Is it

not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? If He called them gods, unto
whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of
Him, whom the Fatherhath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou
blasphemest;because I said, I am the Son of God?" The judges and rulers of
the early days of Israelhad been calledgods because their office and function
was just this — to representGod on earth to men, to reflectHis character,
and do His will, and lead His people. They often failed to do this because they
were merely human. In some cases they were false to their trust, and then
God's vengeance overtook them. Yet they pointed to that one far-off Divine
event when One who should perfectly fulfil that name was to interpose for the
world's deliverance. And thus, just as the implied prophecy in calling men
gods was to be one day fulfilled, so the prophecy of Isaiahbefore us was also a
prophecy of that same later far-off event, when one who was in every sense
"Godwith us" should come to satisfythe needs and the longings of the human
heart.
(Canon Ainger.)
Immanuel, the Sympathiser
Canon Ainger.
"Godwith us." This means omnipotence with us, omniscience with us,
perfection with us, and the love that never fails. Some of us, perhaps, have
tried, in conformity with the passionfor getting rid of the supernatural that
marks the lateststruggle of the scientific world, to construct a new religion
out of the old, in which the same pathetic and lovely figure as before shall be
placed beside us for our example, but from whom the aureole of Deity has
been takenaway; they have been trying to find all that life needs in the
presence only of a fellow man, howeversuperior to ourselves in holiness and
purity. There are moments in our lives when we feel ourselves face to face
with sin, in the presence ofsorrow or of death from which no man candeliver
us. In the sad hours of your life, it has been said, the recollectionofthat Man
you read of in your childhood, the Man of sorrows, the great Sympathiser
with human woes and sufferings, rises up before you. I know it is a reality for

you then, for you feelit to be not only beautiful but true. In such moments
does it seemto you as if Christ were merely a personwho eighteenhundred
years ago made certain journeying betweenJudea and Galilee? Cansuch a
recollectionfill up the blank which some present grief, the loss of some friend,
has made in your heart? It does not. It never did this for you or for anyone.
But the comfort that came to you from the thought of Him may be safely
trusted not to betray you, for that voice that came to you in your anguish says,
"You may trust Me, you may lean upon Me, for I know all things in heaven
and earth. I and My Father are one."
(Canon Ainger.)
Immanuel
Evan Lewis, B. A.
Nature, God, and Jesus are words often used to designate the same power or
being, but are suggestive ofvery different associations. The word "nature"
veils from our view the glory of the Godhead, and removes His personality
from our consciousness.It removes the Deity to a distance from us, but Jesus,
the newerand better name, the latestrevelation, brings Him nearer to us. The
associationsofthe name Jesus, as a name of God, are most tender and
endearing. Jesus does not remind us of blind poweror unfeeling skill, as the
word nature does;nor yet of overwhelming greatness,distant force and vast
intelligence, the conceptionof which strains our faculties, and the realisation
of which crushes our power, as the word God does. The name of Jesus
reminds us chiefly of sympathy, kindheartedness, brotherly tenderness, and
one-ness with ourselves. The word God presents a picture of the Deity to the
mind, in which those attributes of the Divine characterwhich are in
themselves most removed from us, occupy the most prominent position, and
are bathed with a flood of light, while those features of character, by which
the Divine Spirit touches the delicate chords of human affections, are dimly
seenamid the darkening shadows of the background. The picture is reversed
in Jesus. The greatattributes are buried in the light of love, as the stars are
coveredby the light of day.

(Evan Lewis, B. A.)
"Immanuel," a stimulus to the prophet himself
"Niger" in Expositor.
Isaiahmay have meant the Name to speak to him as wellas to the nation. He
may have desired to bring the messageofthe Name into his personaland
family life. For, after all, a prophet is but a man of like passions with"
ourselves, subjectto the same infirmities and fluctuations of spirit, "warmed
and cooled, by the same winter and summer." There were times, no doubt,
when even Isaiah lostfaith in his own function, in his own message,whenthe
very man who had assureda sinful nation that God was with them could
hardly believe that God was with him or could even cry out, "Departfrom
me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man!" And in such moments as these, when,
wearyof the world and weary of himself, he lostcourage and hope, he may
have felt that it would be well for him to have that in his very household which
would help to recallthe truths he had recognisedandtaught in hours of
clearerinsight, help to restore the faith with which he had first sprung up to
greetthe Divine message.We may believe that there were many darkened
hours in his experience, hours of broken faith and defeatedhope, when he
would fall back on his earlier faith and brighter hopes; when he would call his
little son to him, and, as he fondled him, would repeat his name, Immanuel,
Immanuel — God-with-us, God-with-us, — and find in that Name a charm
potent to restore his waning trust in the gracious presenceand gracious willof
Jehovah.
("Niger" in Expositor.)
The child Immanuel
Isaiahmay have felt, as we feel, that Godis with a little child in quite another
sense, in a more pathetic sense, than He is with grownmen. To him, as to us,

their innocence, their loveliness, and, above all, their love, may have been the
most exquisite revelation of the purity and love of God. "Heaven lies about
their infancy"; and in this heaven the prophet may often have taken refuge
from his cares, despondencies,and fears. Every child born into the world
brings this message to us, reminds us that God is with us indeed and of a
truth; for whence did this new, pure, tender life come if not from the central
Fountain of life and purity and love? And from this point of view Isaiah's
"Immanuel" is but the ancientanalogue of our Lord's tender words:Of such
is the kingdom of heaven."
Immanuel
T. H. Barnett.
The text is prophecy of the Messiah(Matthew 1:23).
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WAS SPOKEN.
II. ITS FULFILMENT. Formore than seven hundred years devout Jews
waited for the Divinely predicted sign. Then came the day which Christmas
commemorates,
III. ITS PRACTICAL IMPORT. To Christians this prophecy is significant of
those blessings which are pledged to us in Christ. In Him we have the
assurance ofGod being —
1. With us in the sense ofon our side. Nature shows us God as above us; law
shows us God as againstus, because we have made ourselves His enemies;but
the Gospelshows us God with us to defend us from the. powerof sin and to
deliver us from the penalty of sin.
2. With us in the sense ofin our nature. "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us"; became one of ourselves, sharedwith us —(1) The trials of a
human life;(2) The temptations which assailus;(3) The penalty of sin — death
of the body, the hiding of God's countenance. And so in Christ Jesus we the

pledge of the three cardinal blessings ofall Divine revelation —(a) The Divine
sympathy, because He is "touchedwith the feeling of our infirmities."(b) The
Divine salvation, because He has "put awaysin by the sacrifice ofHimself."(c)
The Divine succour, because He "ever liveth to make intercession" forus; and
His parting word to His Church is, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world."
(T. H. Barnett.)
God with us, though His presence is not always realised
ProfessorTyndall has told us how, as he wandered through the higher Alpine
pastures in the earliermonths of the present summer (1879), he was often
surprised to find at evening lovely flowers in full bloom where in the morning
he had seenonly a wide thin sheetof snow. Struck with the strange
phenomenon, unable to believe that a few hours of even the most fervent
sunshine had drawn these exquisite flowers to their full maturity, he carefully
scrapedawaythe snow from a few inches of pasture and examined the plants
that were growing beneath it. And, to his surprise and delight, he found that
the powers of life had been with them even while they seemedwrapped in
death; that the sun had reachedthem through the snow;that the snow itself
had both held down the rising warmth of the earth upon them, and sheltered
them from the cold biting winds which might else have destroyedthem. There
they stood, eachfull grown, every flowermaturely developed, though the
greencalyx was carefully folded over the delicately colouredpetals;and no
soonerwas the snow removed, no soonerdid the rays of the sun touch the
greenenfolding calyx, than it openedand revealedthe perfectbeauty it had
shrouded and preserved. And so, doubtless, we shall one day find that God,
our Sun, has been with us even during the winter of our self-discontent, all
through the hours of apparent failure and inertness, quickening in us a life of
which we gave but little sign, maturing and making us perfect by the things
we suffered; so that when the hindering veils are withdrawn, and the full light

of His love shines upon us, at that gracious touch we too may disclose a beauty
of which we had not dreamed, and of Which for long we gave no promise.
Life's best amulet
Christian Endeavor.
A Mohammedan in Africa was once takenprisoner in war. He wore
suspended around his neck an amulet or charm. When this was takenfrom
him he became almost frenzied with grief, and beggedthat it be returned to
him He was willing to sacrifice his right hand for it. It was his peculiar
treasure, which he valued as life itself. It was a very simple affair — A little
leather case enclosing a slip of paper on which was inscribed in Arabic
characters one word — "God." He believed that the wearing of this charm
securedfor him a blessedimmunity from ill. When it was returned to him he
was so overjoyed that the tears streamedfrom his eyes, and falling to the
ground he kissedthe feet of the man who restored to him his treasure. That
poor man had but the bare name — we have God! Not a distant monarch
seatedlonesomelyawayfrom any human voice or footstep. There is one name
that ought to be dearestof all to every Christian — "Immanuel." It means not
a Deity remote or hidden, but "Godwith us."
(Christian Endeavor.)
God with us
Gates of Imagery.
An old poet has representedthe Son of God as having the stars for His crown,
the skyfor His azure mantle, the clouds for His bow, and the fire for His
spear. He rode forth in His majestic robes of glory, but one day resolvedto
alight on the earth, and descended, undressing Himself on the way. When

askedwhatHe would wear, He replied, with a smile, "that He had new clothes
making down below."
(Gates of Imagery.)
COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(14) Behold, a virgin shall conceive, andbear a son . . .—Better, behold, the
young woman, or perhaps the bride, shall conceive. The first noun has the
definite article in the Hebrew, and the word, though commonly used of the
unmarried, strictly speaking denotes rather one who has arrived at
marriageable age. “Bride,” in the old English and German sense ofthe word
as applied to one who is about to become a wife, or is still a young wife, will,
perhaps, best express its relation to the two Hebrew words which respectively
and distinctively are used for “virgin” and for “wife.” In Psalm68:26, the
Authorised Version gives “damsels.” The mysterious prophecy which was
thus delivered to Ahaz has been very differently interpreted.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
7:10-16 Secretdisaffectionto God is often disguisedwith the colourof respect
to him; and those who are resolvedthat they will not trust God, yet pretend
they will not tempt him. The prophet reproved Ahaz and his court, for the
little value they had for Divine revelation. Nothing is more grievous to God
than distrust, but the unbelief of man shall not make the promise of God of no
effect;the Lord himself shall give a sign. How greatsoeveryour distress and
danger, of you the Messiahis to be born, and you cannotbe destroyedwhile
that blessing is in you. It shall be brought to pass in a glorious manner; and
the strongestconsolationsin time of trouble are derived from Christ, our

relation to him, our interest in him, our expectations ofhim and from him. He
would grow up like other children, by the use of the diet of those countries;
but he would, unlike other children, uniformly refuse the evil and choosethe
good. And although his birth would be by the power of the Holy Ghost, yet he
should not be fed with angels'food. Then follows a sign of the speedy
destruction of the princes, now a terror to Judah. Before this child, so it may
be read; this child which I have now in my arms, (Shear-jashub, the prophet's
own son, ver. 3,) shall be three or four years older, these enemies'forces shall
be forsakenof both their kings. The prophecy is so solemn, the sign is so
marked, as given by God himself after Ahaz rejectedthe offer, that it must
have raisedhopes far beyond what the present occasionsuggested. And, if the
prospectof the coming of the Divine Saviour was a never-failing support to
the hopes of ancient believers, what cause have we to be thankful that the
Word was made flesh! May we trust in and love Him, and copy his example.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
Therefore - Since you will not "ask"a pledge that the land shall be safe,
Yahweh will furnish one unasked. A sign or proof is desirable in the case, and
Yahweh will not withhold it because a proud and contemptuous monarch
refuses to seek it. Perhaps there is no prophecy in the Old Testamenton which
more has been written, and which has produced more perplexity among
commentators than this. And after all, it still remains, in many respects, very
obscure. Its generaloriginal meaning is not difficult. It is, that in a short time
- within the time when a young woman, then a virgin, should conceive and
bring forth a child, and that child should grow old enough to distinguish
betweengoodand evils - the calamity which Ahaz fearedwould be entirely
removed. The confederacywouldbe brokenup, and the land forsakenby both
those kings. The conceptionand birth of a child - which could be knownonly
by him who knows "all" future events - would be the evidence of such a result.
His appropriate "name" would be such as would be a "sign," oran indication
that God was the protectorof the nation, or was still with them. In the
examination of this difficult prophecy, my first objectwill be to give an
explanation of the meaning of the "words and phrases" as they occurin the
passage, andthen to show, as far as I may be able, what was the designof the
passage.

The Lord himself - Hebrew, 'Adonai;' see this word explained in the the note
at Isaiah 1:24. He will do it without being askedto do it; he will do it though it
is rejectedand despised;he will do it because it is important for the welfare of
the nation, and for the confirmation of his religion, to furnish a demonstration
to the people that he is the only true God. It is clearlyimplied here, that the
sign should be such as Yahweh alone could give. It would be such as would be
a demonstration that he presided over the interests of the people. If this refers
to the birth of a child, then it means that this was an event which could be
known only to God, and which could be accomplishedonly by his agency. If it
refers to the miraculous conceptionand birth of the Messiah, then it means
that that was an event which none but God could accomplish. The true
meaning I shall endeavorto state in the notes, at the close ofIsaiah 7:16.
Shall give you - Primarily to the house of David; the king and royal family of
Judah. It was especiallydesignedto assure the government that the kingdom
would be safe. Doubtless, however, the word 'you' is designedto include the
nation, or the people of the kingdom of Judah. It would be so public a sign,
and so cleara demonstration, as to convince them that their city and land
must be ultimately safe.
A sign - A pledge; a token;an evidence of the fulfillment of what is predicted.
The word does not, of necessity, denote a miracle, though it is often so applied;
see the notes at Isaiah 7:11. Here it means a proof, a demonstration, a certain
indication that what he had saidshould be fulfilled. As that was to be such a
demonstration as to show that he was "able" to deliver the land, the word
"here" denotes that which was miraculous, or which could be effected"only"
by Yahweh.
Behold - ‫ענע‬ hinnêh. This interjection is a very common one in the Old
Testament. It is used to arrestattention; to indicate the importance of what
was about to be said. It serves to designate persons and things; places and
actions. It is used in lively descriptions, and animated discourse;when
anything unusual was said, or occurred;or any thing which especially
demanded attention; Genesis 12:19;Genesis 16:16;Genesis 18:9;Genesis
1:29; Genesis 40:9;Psalm 134:1. It means here, that an event was to occur
which demanded the attention of the unbelieving monarch, and the regard of

the people - an event which would be a full demonstration of what the prophet
had said, that God would protectand save the nation.
A virgin - This word properly means a girl, maiden, virgin, a young woman
who is unmarried, and who is of marriageable age. The word ‫המלע‬ ‛almâh, is
derived from the verb ‫המע‬ ‛âlam, "to conceal, to hide, to cover." The word ‫המע‬
‛elem, from the same verb, is applied to a "young man," in 1 Samuel17:56; 1
Samuel 20:22. The word here translateda virgin, is applied to Rebekah
Genesis 24:43, and to Miriam, the sisterof Moses, Exodus 2:8. It occurs in
only sevenplaces in the Old Testament. Besides those alreadymentioned, it is
found in Psalm68:25; Sol1:3; Sol6:8; and Proverbs 30:19. In all these places,
except, perhaps, in Proverbs, it is used in its obvious natural sense, to denote a
young, unmarried female. In the Syriac, the word alĕm, means to grow up,
juvenis factus est; juvenescere fecited. Hence, the derivatives are applied to
youth; to young men; to young women - to those who "are growing up," and
becoming youths.
The etymologyof the word requires us to suppose that it means one who is
growing up to a marriageable state, orto the age of puberty. The word
maiden, or virgin, expresses the correctidea. Hengstenberg contends, that it
means one "in the unmarried state;" Gesenius, that it means simply the being
of marriageable age, the age ofpuberty. The Hebrews usually employed the
word ‫התומע‬ bethûlâh, to denote a pure virgin (a word which the Syriac
translation uses here); but the word here evidently denotes one who was
"then" unmarried; and though its primary idea is that of one who is growing
up, or in a marriageable state, yetthe whole connectionrequires us to
understand it of one who was "not then married," and who was, therefore,
regardedand designated as a virgin. The Vulgate renders it 'virgo.' The
Septuagint, ἡ παρθένος hē parthenos, "a virgin" - a word which they use as a
translation of the Hebrew ‫התומע‬ bethûlâh in Exodus 22:16-17;Leviticus 21:3,
Leviticus 21:14; Deuteronomy22:19, Deuteronomy 22:23, Deuteronomy
22:28;Deuteronomy 32:25; Judges 19:24;Judges 21:12;and in thirty-three
other places (see Trommius' Concordance);of ‫נהעע‬ na‛ărâh, a girl, in Genesis
24:14, Genesis 24:16, Genesis 24:55;Genesis 34:3 (twice); 1 Kings 1:2; and of
‫המלע‬ ‛almâh, only in Genesis 24:43;and in Isaiah7:14.

The word, in the view of the Septuagint translators, therefore conveyedthe
proper idea of a virgin. The Chaldee uses substantially the same word as the
Hebrew. The idea of a "virgin" is, therefore, the most obvious and natural
idea in the use of this word. It does not, however, imply that the person
spokenof should be a virgin "when the child" should be born; or that she
should everafter be a virgin. It means simply that one who was "then" a
virgin, but who was of marriageable age, shouldconceive, and bear a son.
Whether she was "to be" a virgin "at the time" when the child was born, or
was to remain such afterward, are inquiries which cannot be determined by a
philologicalexamination of the word. It is evident also, that the word is not
opposedto "either" of these ideas. "Why" the name which is thus given to an
unmarried woman was derived from the verb to "hide, to conceal,"is not
agreedamong lexicographers. The more probable opinion is, that it was
because to the time of marriage, the daughter was supposedto be hidden or
concealedin the family of the parents; she was kept shut up, as it were, in the
paternal dwelling. This idea is given by Jerome, who says, 'the name is given
to a virgin because she is said to be hidden or secret;because she does not
expose herselfto the gaze of men, but is kept with great care under the
custody of parents.' The sum of the inquiry here, into the meaning of the word
translated "virgin," is, that it does not differ from that word as used by us.
The expressionmeans no more than that one who was then a virgin should
have a son, and that this should be a sign to Ahaz.
And shall call his name - It was usual for "mothers" to give names to their
children; Genesis 4:1; Genesis 19:37;Genesis 29:32;Genesis 30:18. There is,
therefore, no reasonto suppose, as many of the older interpreters did, that the
fact that it is said the mother should give the name, was a proof that the child
should have no human father. Such arguments are unworthy of notice; and
only show to what means people have resorted in defending the doctrines, and
in interpreting the pages ofthe Bible. The phrase, 'she will name,' is,
moreover, the same as 'they shall name,' or he shall be named. 'We are not,
then, to suppose that the child should actually receive the name Immanuel as
a proper name, since, according to the usage ofthe prophet, and especiallyof
Isaiah, that is often ascribedto a personor thing as a name which belongs to
him in an eminent degree as an attribute; see Isaiah9:5; Isaiah61:6; Isaiah

62:4.' - "Hengstenberg."The idea is, that that would be a name that might be
"appropriately" given to the child. Another name was also given to this child,
expressing substantially the same thing, with a circumstantialdifference; see
the note at Isaiah8:3.
Immanuel - Hebrew 'God with us' - ‫הלנואמ‬ ‛immânû'êl - from ‫אמ‬ 'ĕl, "God,"
and ‫הלנע‬ ‛ı̂mmânû, "with us." The name is designedto denote that God would
be with the nation as its protector, and the birth of this child would be a sign
or pledge of it. The mere circumstance that this name is given, however, does
not imply anything in regard to the nature or rank of the child, for nothing
was more common among the Jews than to incorporate the name, or a part of
the name, of the Deity with the names which they gave to their children. Thus,
"Isaiah" denotes the salvationof Yahweh; "Jeremiah," the exaltationor
grandeur of Yahweh, eachcompounded of two words, in which the name
Yahweh constitutes a part. Thus, also in "Elijah," the two names of God are
combined, and it means literally, "Godthe Yahweh." Thus, also "Eliab," God
my faather; "Eliada," knowledge ofGod; "Eliakim," the resurrectionof God;
"Elihu," he is my God; "Elisha," salvationofGod. In none of these instances
is the fact, that the name of God is incorporatedwith the proper name of the
individual, any argument in respectto his rank or character.
It is true, that Matthew Mat 1:23 uses this name as properly expressing the
rank of the Messiah;but all that can be demonstrated from the use of the
name by Matthew is, that it properly designatedthe nature and rank of the
Lord Jesus. It was a pledge, then, that God was with his people, and the name
designatedby the prophet had a complete fulfillment in its use as applied to
the Messiah. Whetherthe Messiahbe regarded as himself a pledge and
demonstration of the presence and protectionof God, or whether the name be
regardedas descriptive of his nature and dignity, yet there was an
"appropriateness"in applying it to him. It was fully expressive of the event of
the incarnation. Jerome supposes that the name, Immanuel, denotes nothing
more than divine aid and protection. Others have supposed, however, that the
name must denote the assumption of our nature by God in the person of the
Messiah, that is, that God became man. So Theodoret, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Lactantius, Chrysostom. Calvin, Rosenmuller, and others. The true
interpretation is, that no argument to prove that canbe derived from the use

of the name; but when the factof the incarnation has been demonstrated from
other sources, the "name is appropriately expressive ofthat event." So it
seems to be used by Matthew.
It may be quite true, that no argument canbe founded on the bare name,
Immanuel; yet that name, "in its connectionhere," may certainly be regarded
as a designedprediction of the incarnation of Christ. Such a design our author
allows in the prophecy generally. 'The prophet,' says he, 'designedly made use
of language which would be appropriate to a future and most glorious event.'
Why, then, does he speak ofthe most pregnant word in the prophecy as if
Matthew had accidentallystumbled on it, and, finding it would appropriately
express the nature of Christ, accomodated it for that purpose? Having
originally rejectedthe Messianic reference, andbeen convinced only by a
more careful examination of the passage, thathe was in error, something of
his old view seems still to cling to this otherwise admirable exposition. 'The
name Immanuel,' says ProfessorAlexander, 'although it might be used to
signify God's providential presence merely Psalm46:8, 12; Psalm89:25;
Joshua 1:5; Jeremiah1:8; Isaiah43:2, has a latitude and pregnancy of
meaning which canscarcelybe fortuitous; and which, combined with all the
rest, makes the conclusionalmost unavoidable, that it was here intended to
express a personal, as well as a providential presence ... When we read in the
Gospelof Matthew, that Jesus Christwas actually born of a virgin, and that
all the circumstances ofhis birth came to pass that this very prophecy might
be fulfilled, it has less the appearance ofan unexpectedapplication, than of a
conclusionrendered necessaryby a series ofantecedentfacts and reasonings,
the lastlink in a long chain of intimations more or less explicit (referring to
such prophecies as Genesis 3:15;Micah 5:2).
The same considerations seemto show that the prophecy is not merely
accommodated, whichis, moreover, clearfram the emphatic form of the
citation τοῦτο ὅλονγέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ touto holon gegonenhina plēroothē,
making it impossible to prove the existence ofany quotation in the proper
sense, if this be not one.'But, indeed, the author himself admits all this,
though his language is less decidedand consistentthan could be wished on so
important a subject.

Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
14. himself—since thou wilt not ask a sign, nay, rejectestthe offer of one.
you—for the sake ofthe house of believing "David" (God remembering His
everlasting covenantwith David), not for unbelieving Ahaz' sake.
Behold—arresting attentionto the extraordinary prophecy.
virgin—from a root, "to lie hid," virgins being closelykeptfrom 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
speakerand his hearers;primarily, the woman, then a virgin, about
immediately to become the secondwife, and bear a child, whose attainment of
the age ofdiscrimination (about three years)should be preceded by the
deliverance of Judah from its two invaders; its fullest significancyis realized
in "the woman" (Ge 3:15), whose seedshould bruise the serpent's head and
deliver captive man (Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3). Language is selectedsuchas, while
partially applicable to the immediate event, receives its fullest, most
appropriate, and exhaustive accomplishment in Messianic events. The New
Testamentapplication 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 foreshadowstypically the greatcentral
end of prophecy, Jesus Christ (Re 19:10). Evidently the wording is such as to
apply more fully to Jesus Christthan to the prophet's son;"virgin" applies, in
its simplest sense, to the Virgin Mary, rather than to the prophetess who
ceasedto be a virgin when she "conceived";"Immanuel," God with us (Joh
1:14; Re 21:3), cannot in a strict sense apply to Isaiah's son, but only to Him
who is presently called expressly(Isa 9:6), "the Child, the Son, Wonderful
(compare Isa 8:18), the mighty God." Localand temporary features (as in Isa
7:15, 16)are added in every type; otherwise it would be no type, but the thing
itself. There are resemblances to the greatAntitype sufficient to be recognized
by those who seek them; dissimilarities enough to confound those who do not
desire to discoverthem.
call—that is, "she shall," or as Margin, "thou, O Virgin, shalt call;" mothers
often named their children (Ge 4:1, 25;19:37; 29:32). In Mt 1:23 the

expressionis strikingly changedinto, "Theyshall call"; when the prophecy
receivedits full accomplishment, no longer is the name Immanuel restrictedto
the prophetess'view of His character, as in its partial fulfilment in her son; all
shall then call (that is, not literally), or regard Him as peculiarly and most
fitly characterizedby the descriptive name, "Immanuel" (1Ti 3:16; Col 2:9).
name—not mere appellation, which neither Isaiah's sonnor Jesus Christ bore
literally; but what describes His manifested attributes; His character(so Isa
9:6). The name in its proper destination was not arbitrary, but characteristic
of the individual; sin destroyed the faculty of perceiving the internal being;
hence the severance now betweenthe name and the character;in the case of
Jesus Christ and many in Scripture, the Holy Ghosthas supplied this want
[Olshausen].
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Therefore;because youdespise me, and the sign which I now offer to you,
God of his own free grace will send you a more honourable messenger, and
give you a nobler sign, to try whether that will cure you of your infidelity. Or,
nevertheless, as this particle seems to be understood, Isaiah 30:18 Jeremiah
16:14 30:16. Although you deserve no sign nor favour, yet, for the comfortof
those few believers which are among you, and to leave you without excuse, I
shall mind you or another and a greatersign, which God hath promised, and
will in his due time perform; which also is a pledge of the certain
accomplishmentof all God’s promises. Or, surely, as this particle is sometimes
used, as Genesis 4:15 Jeremiah2:33 5:2 Zechariah11:7.
A sign, to wit, of your deliverance.
Quest. How was this birth of a virgin, which was not to come till many ages
after, a sign of their deliverance from the present danger?
Answ.

1. Becausethis was a cleardemonstration of God’s infinite power, and
goodness,and faithfulness, and consequently of the certain truth of all God’s
promises from time to time, which can never fill so long as those attributes of
God stand; and men’s faith is either strong or weak, as they believe them or
doubt of them; of which see Psalm77:8 78:19,20 Ro 4:20,21. And so this was a
proper remedy for Ahaz’s disease,whichwas a secretsuspicionthat God
either could not or would not deliver them.
2. Becausethatpromise, I say not only the actualgiving, which was long after,
but even the promise, of the Messiah, whichhad been made long since, and oft
renewed, and was universally believed by all the people, was the foundation of
all God’s mercies and promises unto them, 2 Corinthians 1:20, and a pledge of
the accomplishmentof them.
3. Becausethis promised birth did suppose and require the preservationof
that city, and nation, and tribe, in and of which the Messiahwas to be born;
and therefore there was no cause to fear that utter ruin which their enemies
now threatened to bring upon them.
4. This is one, but not the only sign here given, as we shall see at Isaiah7:16.
Behold; you who will not believe that God alone is able to deliver you from the
united force of Syria and Israel, take notice, for your full satisfaction, that
God is not only able to do this work, but to do far greaterand harder things,
which he hath promised, and therefore both can and will accomplish.
A virgin; strictly and properly so called. The Jews, that they may obscure this
plain text, and weakenthis proof of the truth of Christian religion, pretend

that this Hebrew word signifies a young woman, and not a virgin. But this
corrupt translation is easilyconfuted,
1. Becausethis word constantlysignifies a virgin in all other places of
Scripture where it is used, which are Genesis 24:43, comparedwith Isaiah
7:16 Exodus 2:8 Psalm 68:25 Song of Solomon 1:3 6:8; to which may be added
Proverbs 30:19, The way of a man with a maid, or a virgin: for though it be
supposedthat he did design and desire to corrupt her, and afterwards did so;
yet she may well be called a virgin, partly because he found her a virgin, and
partly because she seemedand pretended to others to be such, which made
her more carefulto use all possible arts to preserve her reputation, and so
made the discoveryof her impure conversationwith the man more difficult,
whereas the filthy practices ofcommon harlots are easilyand vulgarly known.
2. From the scope ofthis place, which is to confirm their faith by a strange
and prodigious sign, which surely could not be not a young woman should
conceive a child, but that a virgin should conceive, &c.
Beara Son; or rather, bring forth, as it is rendered, Matthew 1:23, and as this
Hebrew word is used, Genesis 16:11 17:19 Judges 13:5.
And shall call; the virgin, last mentioned, shall call;which is added as a
further evidence of her virginity, and that this Son had no human father,
because the right of naming the child (which, being a sign of dominion, is
primarily in the husband, and in the wife only by his consentor permission, as
is evident from Genesis 5:29 35:18 Luke 1:60,63, and many other places of
Scripture) is wholly appropriated to her.

Immanuel; which signifies, God with us; God dwelling among us, in our
nature, John 1:14, God and man meeting in one person, and being a Mediator
betweenGod and men. For the designof these words is not so much to relate
the name by which Christ should commonly be called, as to describe his
nature and office; as we readthat his name shall be called Wonderful,
Counsellor, &c., Isaiah9:6, and that this is saidto be his (the Messiah’s)name
whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness,Jeremiah23:6,
although he be never called by these names in any other place of the Old or
New Testament;but the meaning of these places is, He shall be wonderful, and
our Counsellor, &c., and our Righteousness;for to be calledis oft put for to
be, as Isaiah 1:26 4:3, &c.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign,.... Whetherthey would ask
one or not; a sign both in heaven and earth, namely, the promised Messiah;
who being the Lord from heaven, would take flesh of a virgin on earth; and
who as man, being buried in the heart of the earth, would be raised from
thence, and ascendup into heaven; and whose birth, though it was to be many
years after, was a sign of present deliverance to Judah from the confederacy
of the two kings of Syria and Israel;and of future safety, since it was not
possible that this kingdom should cease to be one until the Messiahwas come,
who was to spring from Judah, and be of the house of David; wherefore by
how much the longeroff was his birth, by so much the longer was their safety.
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, andbear a son; this is not to be understood of
Hezekiah, the sonof Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewishwriters interpret it;
which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiahwas nine
years old when his father beganto reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth
year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age;in like manner,
Aben Ezra and Kimchi objectto it; and besides, his mother could not be
calleda "virgin": and for the same reasonit cannot be understood of any
other son of his either by his wife, as Kimchi thinks, or by some young
woman; moreover, no other sonof his was ever lord of Judea, as this
Immanuel is representedto be, in Isaiah 8:8 nor can it be interpreted of
Isaiah's wife and son, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi think; since the prophet could

never call her a "virgin", who had bore him children, one of which was now
with him; nor indeed a "young woman", but rather "the prophetess", as in
Isaiah8:3 nor was any son of his king of Judah, as this appears to be, in the
place before cited: but the Messiahis here meant, who was to be born of a
pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned,
as Genesis 24:43 and even in Proverbs 30:19 which is the instance the Jews
give of the word being used of a woman corrupted; since it does not appear
that the maid and the adulterous womanare one and the same person; and if
they were, she might, though vitiated, be calleda maid or virgin, from her
own professionof herself, or as she appeared to others who knew her not, or
as she was antecedentto her defilement; which is no unusual thing in
Scripture, see Deuteronomy22:28 to which may be added, that not only the
EvangelistMatthew renders the word by "a virgin"; but the Septuagint
interpreters, who were Jews, so renderedthe word hundreds of years before
him; and best agreeswith the Hebrew word, which comes from the root which
signifies to "hide" or "cover";virgins being coveredand unknown to men;
and in the easterncountry were usually kept recluse, and were shut up from
the public company and conversationof men: and now this was the signthat
was to be given, and a miraculous one it was, that the Messiahshould be born
of a pure and incorrupt virgin; and therefore a "behold" is prefixed to it, as a
note of admiration; and what else could be this sign or wonder? not surely
that a young married woman, either Ahaz's or Isaiah's wife, should be with
child, which is nothing surprising, and of which there are repeatedinstances
every day; nor was it that the young womanwas unfit for conceptionat the
time of the prophecy, which was the fancy of some, as Jarchi reports, since no
such intimation is given either in the text or context; nor did it lie in this, that
it was a male child, and not a female, which was predicted, as R. Saadiah
Gaon, in Aben Ezra, would have it; for the sign or wonder does not lie in the
truth of the prophet's prediction, but in the greatness ofthe thing predicted;
besides, the verification of this would not have given the prophet much credit,
nor Ahaz and the house of David much comfort, since this might have been
ascribedrather to a happy conjecture than to a spirit of prophecy; much less
can the wonder be, that this child should eat butter and honey, as soonas it
was born, as Aben Ezra and Kimchi suggest;since nothing is more natural to,

and common with young children, than to take down any kind of liquids
which are sweetand pleasant.
And shall call his name Immanuel; which is, by interpretation, "God with us",
Matthew 1:23 whence it appears that the Messiahis truly God, as well as truly
man: the name is expressive of the union of the two natures, human and
divine, in him; of his office as Mediator, who, being both God and man, is a
middle personbetweenboth; of his converse with men on earth, and of his
spiritual presence with his people. See John 1:14.
Geneva Study Bible
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and beara son, and shall callhis name Immanuel.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
14–16.The sign of Immanuel. See Additional Note at the end of this chapter.
14. Therefore]because ofthis actof unbelief. the Lord himself] The word is
Adonai, as ch. Isaiah6:1.
Behold, a virgin] (LXX. ἡ παρθένος, other Greek versions νεᾶνις.) The
Hebrew word (‘almâh) means strictly “a young woman of marriageable age.”
Both etymology and usage (cf. esp. Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon6:8) are
adverse to the opinion, once prevalent among Christian interpreters and
maintained by a few in recent times, that virginity is necessarilyconnoted(see
RobertsonSmith, Prophets, Revd. Ed. pp. 426 f.). To express that idea a
different word (běthûlâh) must have been employed, although evenit might
not be wholly free from ambiguity (? Joel1:8). It is, of course, notdisputed
that ‘almâh may be used of a virgin (as Genesis 24:43;Exodus 2:8); but even
if this usage were more uniform than it is, it would still be far from proving
that virginity was an essentialofthe notion. It would appear, therefore, that
the idea of a miraculous conceptionwas not present to Isaiah’s mind at this
time, since a prediction of such astounding import must surely have been

clothed in unambiguous language. Nordoes the def. art., which is used in the
original, necessarilydenote a particular individual. (Cf. 2 Samuel 17:17, and
see Davidson, Synt. § 21 e.)So far as grammar and context go, the expression
may mean any young woman, fit to become a mother, whether as yet married
or unmarried.
shall conceive, and bear a son]The same phrase in Genesis 16:11;Jdg 13:5. In
the passage before us the verbs in the original are both participles, and might
refer either to the present or the future. But it is doubtful if we canfairly
apply one to the present and the other to the future, translating “is with child
and shall bear.” Since the birth is certainly future, it seems natural to take the
first verb in a future sense also.
and shall call] An archaic form, easilymistakenfor 2nd pers. (so LXX. &c.).
The mother names the child, as in Genesis 4:1; Genesis 4:25;Genesis 19:37 f.;
Genesis 29:32, &c. An instructive parallel is the naming of the child Ichabod,
born to Eli’s daughter-in-law on the dark day when the ark of God was taken
and the glory departed from Israel(1 Samuel 4:19-22).
Immanuel] “With us is God.” The battle-cry of Gustavus Adolphus in the
Thirty Years War, “Gottmit uns,” was also Isaiah’s watchwordfor the
coming crisis (cf. ch. Isaiah8:8; Isaiah 8:10); and like other greatthoughts of
his ministry he as it were gives it personaland concrete actuality by
conceiving it as embodied in the name of a child.
Additional Note on Chap. Isaiah 7:14-16Probablyno single passageofthe Old
Testamenthas been so variously interpreted or has given rise to so much
controversyas the prophecy contained in these verses. The difficulties arise
mainly from the fact that while the terms of the prediction are so indefinite as
to admit a wide range of possibilities, we have no recordof its actual

fulfilment in any contemporary event. The purpose of this note will be to
indicate the chief lines along which a solution has been soughtfor, and to
considerhow far they satisfy the conditions of a reasonable historicalexegesis.
But before entering on this survey, it will be well to enquire what sort of
fulfilment the context would lead us to expect, or in other words what kind of
sign would serve the immediate objects of the prophet’s missionto Ahaz.
We are not entitled to assume as a matter of course that the sign here given
will be in all respects sucha sign as Ahaz might have askedat an earlier stage
of the interview (Isaiah 7:11). In the first place it need not involve an objective
miracle, although a miracle of the most stupendous order was originally put
within the option of Ahaz. Any of the senses in which the word “sign” is used
(see on Isaiah 7:11) in connexion with a prediction, would satisfy the
requirements of Isaiah7:14. But further there is a presumption that the
import of the sign will have been changedby what has taken place in the
interval. Isaiah’s first message to Ahaz is an unqualified assurance of
deliverance from the designs of Rezin and Pekah, and the sign first offered
would be a sign of that and that alone. The prospectof an Assyrian invasion
was no doubt in the background of the prophet’s horizon, but his messageto
Ahaz is complete in itself and takes no accountof that final catastrophe. It is
manifest, however, that in Isaiah’s mind the whole aspectofaffairs is altered
by the king’s refusal. The Assyrian invasion is brought into immediate
connexion with the attack of the allies, and a new forecastofthe future is
presentedby the prophet in which three greatevents follow closelyon one
another: (1) the collapse ofthe project of the allied princes, (2) the total
destruction of Syria and Ephraim by the Assyrians, and (3) the devastationof
Judah by the same ruthless conquerors. And the most natural supposition is
that the new sign will be an epitome of this new and darker outlook, that is to
say it will be a pledge at once of the immediate deliverance and of the
judgment that lies behind it. Indeed this view is so obviously implied by Isaiah
7:14-16 that we are shut up to it unless, with some critics, we remove Isaiah
7:15 as an interpolation.

Now there are three features of the prediction in which the import of the sign
may be lookedfor: (i) the birth of the child, (ii) his name, and (iii) his history.
And of these three the last is certainly an essentialelementof the prophecy, as
is shewn by Isaiah7:15-16. With regard to the other two we canonly say that
it is antecedentlyimprobable that either of them should be without some
specialsignificance.
(i) If the import of the sign be soughtmainly in the birth of the child it
becomes almostnecessaryto assume that the terms of the prophecy point to
something extraordinary and mysterious in the circumstances ofthe birth.
This is the case withthe traditional Christian interpretation, which finds in it
a direct prediction of the miraculous conceptionof the Virgin Mother of our
Lord. The chief support of this view has always been the authority of the
EvangelistMatthew, who cites Isaiah 7:14 in relating the birth of Jesus (Isaiah
1:22-23). But it must be observedthat such a citation is not decisive as to the
original sense ofthe passage, anymore than Matthew 2:15 determines the
original sense ofHosea 11:1. The greatdifficulty of the interpretation is that
such an event could by no means serve the purpose of a sign to Ahaz. It may
be freely admitted, in view of Isaiah7:11, that the expectationof a
parthenogenesis is not too bold to be attributed to Isaiahin this moment of
ecstatic inspiration. But if this be granted on the one hand it must be conceded
on the other that he expectedthe miracle to be wrought in the immediate
future; his language (“a virgin is about to conceive”)implies that the
prediction is on the eve of fulfilment, and the assurance in Isaiah7:16 is
nugatory if the promised sign was not to happen for more than 700 years.
Moreover, suchan idea would require to be unambiguously expressed, and we
have seenthat the word ‘almâh does not connote virginity in the strict sense.
Whateverelement of truth, therefore, may underlie this exegesis, it can
scarcelybe held to afford an adequate solution of the problem presented by
the oracle in its primary and historical application.

(ii) Another class ofexplanations regards the event as a sign to Ahaz and
nothing more, and of these we may examine first those which find the chief
significance ofthe sign in the naming of the child. Perhaps the most
persuasive presentationof this view is that given by Duhm. According to that
expositor, the ‘almâh is any young mother who may give birth to a child in the
hour of Judah’s deliverance from Syria and Ephraim. “God(is) with us” will
be the spontaneous exclamationof child-bearing women in that time; and to
such utterances at the moment of birth a certainoracular significance was
attached, which causedthem to be perpetuated in the name of the child. The
child (or children) bearing the name Immanuel will grow up as a sign to Ahaz,
first of the genuineness ofIsaiah’s inspiration, who foretold the event, and
secondof the yet future judgment threatened on the same occasionand his
own rejectionby Jehovah. To this theory no exception canbe takenon
grammaticalor historicalgrounds. It is undoubtedly rendered easierby the
excisionof Isaiah 7:15, which Duhm advocates. Ifthat verse be retained one
feels that the sign is rather overloadedby a circumstance which is directly
opposedto the meaning of the name. And apart from this there will perhaps
remain an impression that justice has not been done to the emphasis with
which the birth is announced. Why, on this view, should the mother be an
‘almâh—a young woman?
(iii) A third view (not to be sharply distinguished from ii) lays stress not so
much on the birth or the naming as on the history of the child, which becomes
a sort of chronologicalthreadon which political events are strung. The
meaning is: before the birth of a certain child Judah will have experienceda
greatdeliverance (Isaiah 7:14), before he has emergedfrom infancy, Syria
and Ephraim will have disappeared(Isaiah 7:16) and at a later stage ofhis
development the land of Judah will be reduced to a pastoralwilderness
(Isaiah 7:15). An interesting parallel is found in the child Pollio in Vergil’s
fourth Eclogue,and another from the life of Mohammed has been lately
pointed out by Mr Bevan[33]. And as in these two casesa particular child is
the subjectof the sign, so here expositors have hazarded severalguesses as to
the identity of the ‘almâh. She has been supposedto be (a) the wife of Isaiah,
either the mother of Shearjashub, or a secondwife (some identifying

Immanuel with Maher-shalal-hash-baz, ch. Isaiah8:3), (b) a damsel in the
harem of Ahaz (the mother of Hezekiahis excluded by the chronology), or (c)
a young woman among the bystanders, indicated by a gesture. None ofthese
conjectures canbe pronounced altogetherhappy. They are all alike
discredited by a certain touch of vulgarity implied in the designationof some
known individual as “the damsel.”
[33] JewishQuarterly Review, Oct. 1893, pp. 220 ff. The incident is that of a
Jew who was discoursing to an Arab tribe at Medina about the resurrection
and the last judgment. “ ‘But,’ said they, ‘what is the sign (âyat, Hebr. ‫)אֹות‬ of
this?’ ‘A prophet,’ he answered, ‘sentfrom that country yonder,’ pointing
with his hand towards Meccaand Yemen. ‘But when,’ they asked, ‘do you
think he will come?’Then he lookedatme and said, ‘If this boy reaches the
full term of life, he will see him.’ And in factbefore another day had passed
God sent His Apostle to dwell among us, and we believed on him, &c.”
An ingenious modification of the last two theories recently propounded by an
American writer[34], differs from all others in excluding the prospect of
deliverance from the import of the sign, whose significanceis found in the
contrastbetweenthe name of the child and his history. The name Immanuel
embodies the religious optimism of the king and nation, their false trust in the
protection of Jehovah;the hardships through which the child passes
symbolise the providential course of events under which this delusive
confidence must collapse. This interpretation, however, requires the excision
of at leastthe latter part of Isaiah 7:16, and also the rejection of ch. Isaiah8:9-
10 as spurious.
[34] F. C. Porter, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. xiv. 1895, pp. 19–
36.

(iv) Another line of exegesis whichhas commended itself to a large number of
modern expositors starts from the idea that here for the first time the figure of
the personalMessiahis flashed on Isaiah’s mind. On this view the prophecy is
invested with profound religious significance, whichis not the case with the
two last-mentioned theories. Face to face with the craven-heartedmonarch
who had betrayed his trust as guardian of the liberty and independence of
Judah, the prophet receives this revelation of the true King, as one born to his
people in the hour of danger, sharing their poverty and affliction in his youth
and waiting the time when “the government shall be upon his shoulder” and
the perfectkingdom of God shall be established(Isaiah 9:6). The attention is
concentratedon the mysterious personality of the child, that of the mother
falls into the background. She may be some unknown daughter of the royal
house, or a nameless maiden of lowly rank; the essentialfactis that in the
speedy advent of Immanuel, in his name, in his experience, men will recognise
the God-given“sign” of the truth of the prophet’s words. This on the whole
seems to be the theory which affords the most adequate solution of the
complex difficulties of the passage.It satisfies tie claims of a truly historical
interpretation, and at the same time it accounts, as none of the other modern
theories do, for the impassionedfervour, the indefinable atmosphere of
mystery and emotion with which the words are surrounded. It is no objection
to it that the anticipation remained an unrealisedideal long after the
opportunity for a sign to Ahaz had passedaway;for a similar remark applies
to the whole conceptionof a personalMessiah, whose appearance Isaiah
certainly expectedto synchronise with the Assyrian invasion. Not the leastof
its recommendations, indeed, is the factthat it brings this prophecy into line
with the other greatMessianic propheciesofch. Isaiah 9:1-7 and Isaiah11:1
ff.; and if the last words of ch. Isaiah8:8 are rightly rendered “thy land, O
Immanuel” (which howeverhas been disputed, see on the verse below)a link
would be supplied which would make the proof almostirresistible, since no
ordinary child, born or unborn, could be naturally apostrophisedas the
ownerof the land.
(v) An allegoricalinterpretationof the prophecy has been advanced by a few
scholars, the “virgin” being takenas a personificationof the Davidic house, or

of the religious community, and the child either as the Messiah, oras a figure
of the new generation;or else the birth is explained as merely a general
symbol of deliverance. But all this is purely fanciful.
A few words may be added in conclusionon the pre-Christian acceptationof
the passage.Froma very early time it seems to have been recognisedthat a
certain mystery clung to the words, that their significance was notexhausted
by the circumstances in which they were originally spoken, but that they had
an eschatologicalreference,pointing forward to the birth of the Messiah, as
the wonderful event on which all the hope of the future hung. The first trace
of this tendency is found in Micah5:3 : “therefore will he (Jehovah)give them
up until the time when a (certain) travailing woman hath brought forth, &c.”
These words canhardly be explained otherwise than as a reference to Isaiah
7:14; and if it were certain that they were written by a contemporaryof Isaiah
they would go far to determine the sense in which the earlierprophecy should
be understood. Since, however, they belong to a part of the book of Micah
whose age is disputed, they may possibly representa secondaryapplication of
Isaiah’s prophecy rather than its primary intention. A further advance in the
same direction appears to be indicated by the rendering of our passagein the
LXX. It is almost incredible that the use of the word παρθένος for ‘almâh in so
important a connexionshould be due to mere laxity on the part of the
translator. More probably it expresses a beliefcurrent in Jewishcircles that
the Messiahwas to be born of a virgin. A good dealof evidence has been
adduced to shew that such an expectationactually prevailed amongstboth
Alexandrian and PalestinianJews [35], and if it existed it could hardly fail to
influence the exegesisofthis prophecy. It was only when the prophecy was
appealedto by the Christians in proof of the Messiahshipof Jesus that the
Jewishexegetesseemfinally to have repudiated the Messianic interpretation.
They refused to admit that the word ‘almâh could properly be translated
“virgin” and fell back on one or other of the theories mentioned under (iii).
The Christian Fathers on the other hand resolutely upheld the correctnessof
the LXX., although the post-Christian Greek versions ofAquila, Theodotion
and Symmachus agree in rendering the word by νεᾶνις. The patristic view
maintained an all but unquestioned ascendancywithin the Church till the

dawn of historical criticism in the eighteenthcentury, when it began to be
recognisedthat on the philologicalquestion the Jews were right.
[35] See Mr F. P. Badham’s letter in the Academy of 8 June, 1895.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 14. - Therefore. To show that your perversity cannot change God's
designs, which will be accomplished, whetheryou hear or whether you
forbear. The Lord himself; i.e. "the Lord himself, of his own free will,
unasked." Will give you a sign. "Signs" were ofvarious kinds. They might be
actualmiracles performed to attest a Divine commission(Exodus 4:3-9); or
judgments of God, significative of his power and justice (Exodus 10:2); or
memorials of something in the past (Exodus 13:9, 16); or pledges of something
still future. Signs of this last-mentioned kind might be miracles (Judges 6:36-
40; 2 Kings 20:8-11), or prophetic announcements (Exodus 3:12; 1 Samuel
2:34; 2 Kings 19:29). These lastwould only have the effectof signs on those
who witnessedtheir accomplishment. Behold. "A forewarning of a great
event" (Cheyne). A virgin shall conceive. It is questioned whether the word
translated "virgin," viz. 'almah, has necessarilythat meaning; but it is
admitted that the meaning is borne out by every other place in which the
word occurs m the Old Testament(Genesis 24:43;Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25;
Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon1:3; Song of Solomon 6:8). The LXX.,
writing two centuries before the birth of Christ, translate by παρθένος. The
rendering "virgin" has the support of the bestmodern Hebraists, as Lowth,
Gesenins, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay. It is observedwith reasonthat unless 'almah
is translated "virgin," there is no announcement made worthy of the grand
prelude: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign - Behold!" The Hebrew,
however, has not "a virgin," but "the virgin" (and so the Septuagint, ἡ
παρθένος), which points to some specialvirgin, pro-eminent above all others.
And shall call; better than the marginal rendering, thou shalt call. It was
regardedas the privilege of a mother to determine her child's name (Genesis
4:25; Genesis 16:11;Genesis 29:32-35;Genesis 30:6-13,18-21,24;Genesis
35:18, etc.), although formally the father gave it (Genesis 16:15;2 Samuel

12:24;Luke 1:62, 83). Immanuel. Translatedfor us by St. Matthew (Matthew
1:23) as "God with us" (μεθ ἡμῶνὁ Θεός). (Comp. Isaiah8:8, 10.)
Isaiah7:15 Verse 15. - Butter and honey shall he eat. His fare shall be of the
simplest kind (comp. ver. 22). That he may know;rather, till he shall know
(Rosenmüller); i.e. till he come to years of discretion. (The rendering of the
Revisers of1885, "whenhe knoweth," is less satisfactory.)
- Note on the generalpurport of the Immanuel prophecy. Few prophecies
have been the subjectof so much controversy, or calledforth such a variety of
exegesis, as this prophecy of Immanuel. Rosenmüllergives a list of twenty-
eight authors who have written dissertations upon it, and himself adds a
twenty-ninth. Yet the subject is far from being exhausted. It is still asked:
(1) Were the mother and sonpersons belonging to the time of Isaiahhimself,
and if so, what persons? Or,
(2) Were they the Virgin Mary and her Son Jesus? Or,
(3) Had the prophecy a double fulfillment, first in certain persons who lived in
Isaiah's time, and secondlyin Jesus and his mother?
I. The first theory is that of the Jewishcommentators. Originally, they
suggestedthat the mother was Abi, the wife of Ahaz (2 Kings 18:2), and the
son Hezekiah, who delivered Judah from the Assyrian power (see Justin,
'Dial. cum Tryphon.,' p. 262). But this was early disproved by showing that,
according to the numbers of Kings (2 Kings 16:2; 2 Kings 18:2), Hezekiahwas
at leastnine years old in the first yearof Ahaz, before which this prophecy

could not have been delivered (Isaiah 7:1). The secondsuggestionmade
identified the mother with Isaiah's wife, the "prophetess" ofIsaiah8:3, and
made the sona child of his, calledactually Immanuel, or else his son Maher-
shalal-hash-baz(Isaiah 8:1) under a symbolical designation. But ha-'almah,
"the virgin," would be a very strange title for Isaiah to have given his wife,
and the rank assignedto Immanuel in Isaiah8:8 would not suit any son of
Isaiah's. It remains to regard the 'almah as "some young woman actually
present," name, rank, and position unknown, and Immanuel as her son, also
otherwise unknown (Cheyne). But the grand exordium, "The Lord himself
shall give you a sign- Behold!" and the rank of Immanuel (Isaiah 8:8), are
alike againstthis.
II. The purely Messianic theoryis maintained by Rosenmüllerand Dr. Kay,
but without any considerationof its difficulties. The birth of Christ was an
event more than seven hundred years distant. In what sense and to what
persons could it be a "sign" ofthe coming deliverance of the land from Rezin
and Pekah? And, upon the purely Messianic theory, what is the meaning of
ver. 16? Syria and Samaria were, in fact, crushed within a few years of the
delivery of the prophecy. Why is their desolationput off, apparently, till the
coming of the Messiah, andeven till he has reacheda certain age? Mr. Cheyne
meets these difficulties by the startling statement that Isaiah expectedthe
advent of the Messiahto synchronize with the Assyrian invasion, and
consequentlythought that before Rezin and Pekahwere crushedhe would
have reachedthe age ofdiscernment. But he does not seemto see that in this
case the sigma was altogetherdisappointing and illusory. Time is an essential
element of a prophecy which turns upon the word "before" (ver. 16). If this
faith of Isaiah's disciples was arousedand their hopes raised by the
announcement that Immanuel was just about to be born (Mr. Cheyne
translates, "A virgin is with child"), what would be the revulsion of feeling
when no Immanuel appeared?

III. May not the true accountof the matter be that suggestedby Bishop Lowth
- that the prophecy had a double bearing and a double fulfillment? "The
obvious and literal meaning of the prophecy is this," he says:"that within the
time that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a
child, and that child should arrive at such an age as to distinguish between
goodand evil, that is, within a few years, the enemies of Judah should be
destroyed." But the prophecy was so worded, he adds, as to have a further
meaning, which wan even "the original designand principal intention of the
prophet," viz. the Messianic one. All the expressions ofthe prophecy do not
suit both its intentions - some are selectedwith reference to the first, others
with reference to the secondfulfillment - but all suit one or the other, and
some suit both. The first child may have receivedthe name Immanuel (comp.
Ittiel) from a faithful Jewishmother, who believed that God was with his
people, whatever dangers threatened, and may have reachedyears of
discretion about the time that Samaria was carried awaycaptive. The second
child is the true "Immanuel," "Godwith us," the king of Isaiah 8:8; it is his
mother who is pointed at in the expression, "the virgin," and on his accountis
the grand preamble; through him the people of God, the true Israel, is
delivered from its spiritual enemies, sin and Satan - two kings who continually
threaten it.
Keil and DelitzschBiblical Commentary on the Old Testament
"Forhead of Aram is Damascus,and head of Damascus Rezin, and in five-
and-sixty years will Ephraim as a people be brokenin pieces. And head of
Ephraim is Samaria, and head of Samaria the son of Remalyahu; if ye believe
not, surely ye will not remain." The attempt to remove Isaiah7:8, as a gloss at
variance with the context, which is supported by Eichhorn, Gesenius, Hitzig,
Knobel, and others, is a very natural one; and in that case the train of thought
would simply be, that the two hostile kingdoms would continue in their former
relation without the annexation of Judah. But when we look more closely, it is

evident that the removal of Isaiah 7:8 destroys both the internal connection
and the external harmony of the clauses. Forjust as Isaiah7:8 and Isaiah 7:8
correspond, so do Isaiah 7:9 and Isaiah 7:9. Ephraim, i.e., the kingdom of the
ten tribes, which has enteredinto so unnatural and ungodly a covenantwith
idolatrous Syria, will cease to exist as a nation in the course of sixty-five years;
"and ye, if ye do not believe, but make flesh your arm, will also ceaseto exist."
Thus the two clauses answerto one another: Isaiah7:8 is a prophecy
announcing Ephraim's destruction, and Isaiah 7:9 a warning, threatening
Judah with destruction, if it rejects the promise with unbelief. Moreover, the
style of Isaiah 7:8 is quite in accordancewith that of Isaiah(on ‫,דהוּב‬ see Isaiah
21:16 and Isaiah16:14; and on ‫,עהל‬ "awayfrom being a people," in the sense
of "so that it shall be no longera nation," Isaiah17:1; Isaiah 25:2, and
Jeremiah48:2, Jeremiah48:42). And the doctrinal objection, that the
prophecy is too minute, and therefore taken ex eventu, has no force whatever,
since the Old Testamentprophecy furnishes an abundance of examples of the
same kind (vid., Isaiah 20:3-4;Isaiah 38:5; Isaiah16:14; Isaiah21:16; Ezekiel
4:5., Isaiah24:1., etc.). The only objection that can well be raised is, that the
time given in Isaiah 7:8 is wrong, and is not in harmony with Isaiah7:16.
Now, undoubtedly the sixty-five years do not come out if we suppose the
prophecy to refer to what was done by Tiglath-pileserafter the Syro-
Ephraimitish war, and to what was also done to Ephraim by Shalmanassarin
the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign, to which Isaiah 7:16 unquestionably refers,
and more especiallyto the former. But there is another event still, through
which the existence ofEphraim, not only as a kingdom, but also as a people,
was broken up - namely, the carrying awayof the last remnant of the
Ephraimitish population, and the planting of colonies from EasternAsia by
Esarhaddon.
(Note:The meaning of this king's name is Assur fratrem dedit
(Asuṙacḣyiddin): vid., Oppert, Expedition, t. ii. p. 354.)
on Ephraimitish soil (2 Kings 17:24; Ezra 4:2). Whereas the land of Judah
was left desolate afterthe Chaldeandeportation, and a new generationgrew
up there, and those who were in captivity were once more enabled to return;
the land of Ephraim was occupiedby heathen settlers, and the few who were
left behind were melted up with these into the mixed people of the Samaritans,

and those in captivity were lost among the heathen. We have only to assume
that what was done to Ephraim by Esarhaddon, as related in the historical
books, took place in the twenty-secondand twenty-third years of Manasseh
(the sixth year of Esarhaddon), which is very probable, since it must have
been under Esarhaddon that Manassehwas carriedawayto Babylon about
the middle of his reign (2 Chronicles 33:11); and we get exactlysixty-five
years from the secondyearof the reign of Ahaz to the termination of
Ephraim's existence as a nation (viz., Ahaz, 14;Hezekiah, 29; Manasseh, 22;
in all, 65). It was then that the unconditional prediction, "Ephraim as a people
will be broken in pieces," was fulfilled (yēchath mē‛âm; it is certainly not the
3rd pers. fut. kal, but the niphal, Malachi2:5), just as the conditional threat
"ye shall not remain" was fulfilled upon Judah in the Babylonian captivity.
tsaf evorp ot ‫עאלין‬ dna ,dlohtsaf a evah otseifingis ‫-נאלן‬holding. If Judah did
not hold fastto its God, it would lose its fast hold by losing its country, the
ground beneath its feet. We have the same play upon words in 2 Chronicles
20:20. The suggestionof Geigeris a very improbable one, viz., that the
original reading was ‫אע‬ ‫מא‬‫תאלינו‬ ‫,הי‬ but that ‫הי‬ appearedobjectionable, and
was alteredinto ‫.יי‬ Why should it be objectionable, whenthe words form the
conclusionto a direct address of JehovahHimself, which is introduced with all
solemnity? Forthis ‫,יי‬ passing overfrom a confirmative into an affirmative
sense, and employed, as it is here, to introduce the apodosis ofthe hypothetical
clause, see 1 Samuel14:39, and (in the formula ‫יי‬ ‫)הּכע‬ Genesis 31:42;Genesis
43:10;Numbers 22:29, Numbers 22:33;1 Samuel 14:30 : their continued
existence would depend upon their faith, as this chi emphatically declares.
PRECEPT AUSTIN RESOURCES
Isaiah7:14 "Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a
virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will callHis name Immanuel.:
Behold: Ge 3:15 Jer 31:22 Mt 1:23 Lk 1:35

Will call: Ge 4:1,2,25 16:11 29:32 30:6,8 1Sa 1:20 4:21
Immanuel : Isa 8:8 9:6 Jn 1:1,2,14 Ro 9:5 1Ti3:16)
Isaiah7 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
See RelatedDevotionals atbottom of page
Immanuel-Emmanuel - 35 pages of notes, devotional,, quotes - Bruce Hurt
A DIFFICULT TEXT
A DEFINITIVE TEXT!
Isaiah7:14-16 is one of the most difficult texts in the Bible to interpret! One
reasonIsaiah7:14 is so controversialis that some who deny the Virgin Birth
of Jesus go to greatlengths (vain attempts in my opinion) to argue that the
Hebrew (and Greek Septuagint)language of this passagedoes notpredict
Jesus'virgin birth! These notes will not attempt to review these sundry, often
confusing opinions. For more detailed analysis, the reader will need to consult
other sources. Note thatin the references listedabove, there are a number of
scholarlyarticles on this passage(Note:The $ signifies that the host site
charges a fee [$50]to view the entire article but this fee gives one a full year's
subscription with accessto literally thousands of articles in conservative,
highly respectedtheologicaljournals -- PS - I receive no royalty but if you can
afford it, this is potentially a "goldmine" of sound teaching on the Word of
God!)
I love Spurgeon's comment that Isaiah7:14 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 sayabout it, and I
rose up from reading them perfectly confused.
Ray Stedman (Isaiah 7, 9 O Come, Immanuel!)...
Charles Wesleyhad a great gift for incorporating in brief form some of the
greatesttruths of our faith. He wrote,
Late in time behold Him come,

Offspring of a Virgin's womb;
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail th' incarnate Deity.
In Chapter 7 of Isaiahwe have the prophetic announcementof that virgin
birth. One commentatorhas written:
Of measureless importance to the universe, to this world, to every individual
of the human family is the prophecy to which we have now come. On the
fulfillment of this prophecy all Christianity rests, as a building on its
foundation.
Therefore - This is a term of conclusionwhich always begs the question of the
reader "Whatis it there for?" BecauseofAhaz's actof unbelief and failure to
ask for a sign, God Himself will instead give the sign.
Behold (02009)(hinneh) is an interjection (= a word in speaking or writing,
thrown in betweenwords connectedin construction, to express some emotion
or passion)often seeks to grab the reader's attention and says something like -
Look!Pay attention! Don't miss this next point! Hinneh draws attention to an
important factor actionthat follows and in a sense demands our attention. It
follows that the prophecy in Isaiah7:14 demands every reader's very careful
attention. Unfortunately this great passage has beenscrutinized and criticized
to the the point that the readermight miss the Lord's clearintent
(remembering that He is not a God of confusion!) That said there are some
legitimate difficulties in the translation and interpretation of this famous
passage.
Young adds that "hinneh or “behold!” is employed in the Scriptures to
announce a birth of unusual importance and significance."(The Book of
Isaiah3 Vol. Edward J. Young) (Young)
Spurgeonreminds us that "Beholdis a word of wonder; it is intended to excite
admiration. Whereveryou see it hung out in Scripture, it is like an ancient
sign-board, signifying that there are rich wares within, or like the hands
which solid readers have observed in the margin of the older Puritanic books,

drawing attention to something particularly worthy of observation." I would
add, behold is like a divine highlighter, a divine underlining of an especially
striking or important text. It says in effect"Listen up, all ye who would be
wise in the ways of Jehovah!"
Hinneh is translated in the Septuagint with the interjection idou (strictly
speaking a command in the secondpersonaoristimperative, middle voice) a
demonstrative particle (used 1377 times in the Septuagint and NT) which is
found especiallyin the Gospels ofMatthew and Luke "and giving a peculiar
vivacity to the style by bidding the readeror hearer to attend to what is said:
"Behold!See!Lo!" (Thayer) The command is calling for urgent attention. Do
this now! Don't delay! It could be looselyparaphrased"Payattention!" or
"Listen up!" to arouse attention and introduce a new and extraordinary fact
of considerable importance.
W E Vine says that it is notable that when behold (hinneh) is used in Isaiah, it
always introduces something relating to future circumstances.
Uses of hinneh in Isaiah -
Isa 3:1; 5:7, 26, 30;6:7f; 7:14; 8:7, 18, 22;10:33; 12:2; 13:9, 17; 17:1, 14; 19:1;
20:6; 21:9; 22:17; 24:1; 25:9; 26:21;28:2, 16; 29:8, 14; 30:27;34:5; 35:4; 36:6;
37:7, 11, 36;38:5, 8, 17; 39:6; 40:9f; 41:15, 27; 42:9; 43:19;47:14; 48:7, 10;
49:12, 22;51:22; 52:6, 13;54:11; 58:9; 59:9; 60:2; 62:11;65:1, 6, 13f, 17f;
66:12, 15
The LORD Himself will give you a sign - In some ways I am glad Ahaz
refused to ask for a sign. Ahaz's unbelief and refusal opens the way for
JehovahHimself to give us one of the greatestsigns in all of the Bible!
Unfortunately it has also become one of the most controversial!
As Grogansays "The sign of the child...constitutes an indication that the all-
sovereignand all-knowing God has the situation completely in hand, and it
rebukes the king’s lack of faith in Him. (Expositor's Bible Commentary
Zondervan Publishing )
Virgin (05959)('almah) has severalmeanings depending on the context -
young woman of marriageable age (Ge 24:43), maiden (Pr 30:19), girl (Ex

2:8), virgin. While some argue that 'almah is by no means an unambiguous
Hebrew term for a virgin, it is notable that a passage suchas Genesis 24:43
describes not only a young woman of marriageable age but one who
undoubtedly is a virgin. Thus the use of 'almah by no means excludes the
possibility that the intended meaning in Isaiah7:14 is a literal virgin. 'Almah
is never employed of a married woman.
'Almah - 7x in OT - Gen 24:43;Ex 2:8; Ps 68:25;Pr 30:19;Song 1:3; 6:8; Isa
7:14
RelatedResources:
Word study on - Virgin (maiden) (01330)bethulah
Word study on - Virgin parthenos
Virgin - Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Virgin; Virginity - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Virgin virginity - Hastings'Dictionary of the New Testament
Without going into the various interpretations and arguments concerning the
meaning of the Hebrew word 'almah, the Greek word parthenos chosenby the
Hebrew translators of the Septuagint(Lxx) lends support to the interpretation
of 'almah in Isaiah 7:14 as a virgin. BDAG says that parthenos is used
"generallyof a young woman of marriageable age, with or without focus on
virginity" (See Mt 25:1, 11, 1Co 7:25, 28, 34).
As an interesting aside, because the Jews'ownGreek translationof the OT
(Lxx was translatedby Jewishscholars circa 150BC)negatedtheir claims that
'almah did not mean virgin, Isaiah 7:14 is one of the reasons Jewish
synagoguesceasedusing the Septuagint Scriptures and returned to the
Hebrew Scriptures! When individuals are not willing to believe God's Word
of Truth (whether in Hebrew or Greek!), it is amazing (and sad) the lengths to
which they will go in order to try to coverup or refute the Truth!
W A Criswelladds that

The Septuagint (Lxx) also uses parthenos to translate anotherHebrew word
meaning "virgin" (betulah), again underscoring the factthat parthenos meant
"virgin" in the Lxx and for Matthew (Ed: See Mt 1:23 below). It is clearthat
both Matthew and the Lxx translators understood that Isaiahwas speaking of
a virgin when he used `almah. And this is preciselythe purity which both
Matthew and Luke ascribe to Mary (cf. Mt 1:18-25;Lk 1:26-35).
Matthew quotes from Isaiah7:14 and uses the Greek noun parthenos...
BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN (parthenos) SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND
SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME
IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US. (Mt 1:23)
Luke also uses parthenos in his description of Jesus'mother Mary...
Now in the sixth month the angelGabriel was sent from God to a city in
Galilee calledNazareth, to a virgin (parthenos) engagedto a man whose name
was Joseph, ofthe descendants ofDavid; and the virgin's (parthenos) name
was Mary. (Lk 1:26, 27-note)
In the conclusionof a well referencedstudy (72 references cited)of the
meaning of 'almah in Isaiah 7:14 Niessenconcludes that
The evidence supports both the traditional translation of “virgin” and the
modern translation of “young woman,” but eachmust be qualified. The
English term “virgin” does not suggestage limitations while the English
phrase “young woman” does not suggestvirginity. The word ‫ע‬ ַ‫ל‬ְ‫הָמ‬ ('almah)
demands both, and so a more accurate translationwould be “young virgin.”
(The Virginity of the ‫ע‬ ַ‫ל‬ְ‫הָמ‬ in Isaiah 7:14 - Bibliotheca Sacra 137:546, April,
1980)
See also - The Immanuel Prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 and its use in Matthew 1:23 -
R Bruce Compton
The NetBible Note comments on virgin...
The Hebrew article has been rendered as a demonstrative pronoun (“this”) in
the translationto bring out its force. It is very likely that Isaiahpointed to a
woman who was presentat the scene ofthe prophet’s interview with Ahaz.

Isaiah’s address to the “house of David” and his use of secondplural forms
suggestsotherpeople were present, and his use of the secondfeminine
singular verb form (“you will name”) later in the verse is best explained if
addressedto a woman who is present.
BecauseIsaiah7:14 is quoted in Mt 1:23 in connectionwith Jesus’birth, the
Isaiahpassage has beenregardedsince the earliestChristian times as a
prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth.
Much debate has takenplace over the bestway to translate this Hebrew term,
although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is
unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (‫ע‬ ַ‫ל‬ְ‫,הָמ‬ ’almah) cansometimes
refer to a woman who is a virgin (Ge 24:43), it does not carry this meaning
inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding
masculine noun ‫ע‬ֶ‫הֶמ‬ (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1Sa 17:56;20:22). The Aramaic
and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of womenwho are not virgins. The
word seems to pertain to age, not sexualexperience, and would normally be
translated “young woman.”
The Septuagint (Lxx) translators who later translatedthe Book ofIsaiah into
Greek sometime betweenthe secondand first century BC, however, rendered
the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek wordparthenos, which does
mean “virgin” in a technicalsense. This is the Greek term that also appears in
the citationof Isa 7:14 in Mt 1:23.
Therefore, regardlessofthe meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT
Matthew’s usage ofthe Greek term parthenos clearlyindicates that from his
perspective a virgin birth has takenplace. (Net Bible Note Isaiah 7)
Constable notes that the "Hebrew has a word for virgin, bethula, so why did
not Isaiahuse this word if he meant the mother of the child was a virgin?
Probably Isaiah used ‘alma rather than bethula because he did not want to
stress the virginity of the mother, but this word does not rule virginity out
either. God evidently led Isaiahto use ‘alma so the predicted mother could be
simply a young unmarried woman or a virgin."
Gene Brooks adds that...

The Rabbis, in an effort to deflect the obvious problem that Isaiah 7:14
creates forthem in Yeshua (Jesus)being the Messiah, say that bethulah
should have been used if the text meant virgin.
Comment: While bethulah does appear to signify a virgin in the context of a
some OT passages(see Ge 24:16-seeNetBible note on this verse), it can also
signify a young woman, maid or maiden (a young marriageable maiden)
without definitively labeling her as a virgin. Thus this term is actually no
more specific for virgin than is the Hebrew word 'almah. The well respected
TWOT makes the point that "a strong case canbe presentedthat betulah is
not a technicalterm for virgo intacta ("maiden intact") in the OT." Harris, R
L, Archer, G L & Waltke, B K TheologicalWordbook ofthe Old Testament.
Moody Press)
Betulah - 50x in OT - Ge 24:16;Ex 22:16, 17;Lev 21:3, 14; Dt 22:19, 23, 28;
32:25;Jdg 19:24; 21:12;2Sa 13:2, 18; 1Kgs 1:2; 2Kgs 19:21;2Chr 36:17;
Esther 2:2f, 17, 19; Job31:1; Ps 45:14;78:63; 148:12;Isa 23:4, 12;37:22;
47:1; 62:5; Jer 2:32; 14:17;18:13; 31:4, 13, 21; 46:11;51:22; Lam 1:4, 15, 18;
2:10, 13, 21;5:11; Ezek 9:6; 44:22; Joel1:8; Amos 5:2; 8:13; Zech 9:17
A virgin will be with child and bear a son - Although some commentators,
even conservative commentators (e.g., Feinberg), feelthat the sign of a virgin
bearing a son was only fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ, it would be
difficult to explain how such a far future sign (over 700 years later) would
function as an actualsign to King Ahaz and the house of David. Therefore,
most conservative commentators view Isaiah7:14 like a number of OT
prophecies which have a near and future fulfillment or so-calleddouble
fulfillment. The near fulfillment of the signoccurred in the days of Ahaz and
the later, complete, final fulfillment occurred at the first coming of Christ
when He was born of the virgin Mary.
DOUBLE FULFILLMENT
OF PROPHECY
ISAIAH 7:14
NEAR FULFILLMENT

FUTURE FULFILLMENT
Maher-shalal-hashbaz**
Isaiah8:3,4, 18
Immanuel
Mt 1:23
** As discussedbelow not everyone agrees that Maher-shalal-hashbazis the
sign to Ahaz (See W A Criswell's note below).
Ray Stedman comments that
It is not wrong to translate "a virgin" as "a young woman." The Hebrew
allows for that. The word can mean a young married as well as a young
unmarried woman. But to be a "sign" it would have to be a young unmarried
woman who had never knowna man -- a virgin, in other words. Young
women have sons all the time, but it would only be a sign if a womanwho
never knew a man conceivedand bore a son. That is what the prophet said
would happen. It was a sign to the whole House of David.
In the New Testamentwe are told that an angelappearedto Josephbecause
he was of the line of David and said to him,
"Fearnot to take this woman to be your wife because that which is born of
her is of the Holy Spirit," Mt 1:20).
Thus the virgin birth was, indeed, a sign to the House of David, 750 years
later, that God would carry out his promise. A baby would be born of a virgin
and his name would be "God with us." ...Surelyanyone reading these two
Scriptures togethercanfail to see the tie betweenthem. (Isaiah 7, 9 O Come,
Immanuel!)
W A Criswellcomments that
The sign of a child was fulfilled not only immediately in the birth of either
(1) Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz(cf. Isa 8:3, 4), or

(2) the royal child Hezekiah (715-686B.C.), whoserighteous deeds (2Ki 18:4 ,
5, 6, cp 2Ki 23:25) were honored by a period of the revealedpresence ofGod;
but messianicallyas Immanuel, "Godwith us," Jesus, the virgin maiden's
Son, Who fulfilled the oracle in its truest sense. ("Double fulfillment" of
prophecy)
Comment: It is important to note that all of the specific interpretations have
problems to some degree. Forexample, one reasonnot everyone agrees that
Maher-Shalal-Hash-Bazwas the sign to Ahaz is because Isaiahalready had
one sonby his wife which makes it difficult to understand how she would
fulfill the meaning of 'alma as a "virgin". And so Criswelloffers the birth of
Hezekiahas the fulfillment of the sign. Some feel that the prophecy Isaiah
7:14 had no fulfillment in Ahaz's day, but then why even give Ahaz a sign
(which he would have been able to recognize)?
The important point to remember is that while the interpretation of the near
fulfillment is disputed, there is no controversy(at leastamong conservative
commentators who acceptpredictive prophecy) on the interpretation of the
future and final fulfillment in the birth of Jesus, Immanuel, to the virgin Mary
(Mt 1:23, Lk 1:26, 27)
IMMANUEL
GOD WITH US
HALLELUJAH!
Immanuel - Godwith us. Despite the difficulties in the detailed interpretation
of Isaiah 7:14 (eg, who is the near fulfillment?), the name Immanuel is clearly
a prediction which was fulfilled in the virgin birth of the Messiah. How canwe
be so dogmatic? Scripture is the best commentary on Scripture (Compare
Scripture with Scripture) and Matthew's quotation of Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23
leaves absolutelyno doubt that the Holy Spirit intended Isaiah7:14 to be a
prophetic sign of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary.
Mattoon- No one else could meet the qualifications of this statement, "God
with us." Jesus Christ was God's love, holiness, and heart wrapped in human
flesh. He was God walking in sandals upon this earth.

See study of this greatname - Immanuel-Emmanuel
Brooks writes that Immanu-El is an "unusual order of the words (which)
indicates an emphatic “WITH US is God!” Thus this name captures the awe
and wonder of the Incarnation, and the unimaginable fact that the God of the
universe entered the world through a virgin’s womb to become like us and
become one with us. (Isaiah 7:14 - The Virgin Shall Conceive)
Wolf adds that "The name Immanuel was a rebuke to Ahaz. If ‘God is with
us,’ then why should he have feared the enemy?"
Adam Clarke asks "In what sense then, is Christ God with us? Jesus is called
Immanuel, or God with us, in His incarnation; God with us, by the influences
of His Holy Spirit, in the holy sacrament, in the preaching of His word, in
private prayer. And God with us, through every actionof our life, that we
begin, continue, and end in His name. He is God with us, to comfort,
enlighten, protect, and defend us, in every time of temptation and trial, in the
hour of death, in the day of judgment; and God with us and in us, and we with
and in Him, to all eternity."
As an aside Irving Jensenreminds us that as we study Isaiah, we need to keep
a proper prophetic perspective explaining that...
Isaiah, like many of the prophets, was given divine revelation concerning four
prophetic points: (1) the prophet’s owntime, (2) coming captivity, (3) coming
of Christ, (4) new heavens and new earth. How these are distributed
throughout the book is summarized below.
1. The prophet’s own time. Messagesconcerning this appear throughout the
book. Forthtelling was Isaiah’s major role.
2. Captivity. Isaiahforesaw Judah takencaptive by the Babylonians. God
alone knew when the captivity would come (586BC). The first mention of
Babylon (Shinar) as the captor is in Isa 11:11. In the days of King Hezekiah
the prophecy was made very clear(cf. Isa 39:6).
3. Coming of Christ. These prophecies abound in the “Book ofConsolation”
(chaps. 40–66). Theyconcernboth the first and secondcomings of Christ.

4. New heavens and new earth. Isaiahprophesies of end times, especiallywith
reference to the Millennium, with Christ as the Prince of peace (Isa 9:6), and
the electnation of Israel gatheredtogetherafter their worldwide dispersion
(Isa 27:12, 13;43:5, 6, 7; 65:8, 9, 10). On the most distant horizon he sees the
new heavens and new earth (Isa 65:17).
BRIAN BELL
"Wondering at Immanuel"
Isaiah7:14; Matthew 1:18-25
Theme: A realization of the meaning of "Immanuel" should cause us to
wonder at the Baby born on Christmas.
(Delivered Christmas Sunday, December23, 2007 atBethany Bible Church.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references are takenfrom The Holy
Bible, New King James Version;copyright 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
In turning our thoughts to Christmas this morning, I invite you to focus your
attention on just one word.
It's an important word, because it happens to be a "name". It's one that we
often hear at Christmas. We're used to hearing it sung in Christmas carols.
We see it written on Christmas cards. But we rarely take the time to consider
what it means--or what that meaning has to do with us in everyday life.
It's too bad that we don't give this "name" the considerationit deserves;
because its meaning is greatnews. And this greatnews--truly grasped--
literally changes everything in life.
* * * * * * * * * * *
The Bible first introduces this wonderful "name" to us in an Old Testament
prophecy. It's found in the Old Testamentbook of Isaiah. And it was

introduced as a part of a promise that God made through Isaiah to the king of
the southern kingdom of Judah.
King Ahaz was in a disparate situation. Two northern kingdoms were forming
an alliance with the powerful and dreaded nation of Assyria. Strengthened by
this alliance, these two northern kingdoms were plotting to make war against
Jerusalem. The threat of this coming war was causing the king of Judah, and
all his people, to tremble in fear “as the trees of the woods are moved with the
wind” (Isaiah 7:1-2).
That's when the Lord God steps in to assure His people that He has not
abandoned them. He sent the prophet Isaiahto Ahaz to tell him not to be
afraid of these two other kings. He assures him that their plot againstGod's
people would not stand. Godmakes the promise that, within sixty-five years,
the hostile northern kingdom would be broken and would cease to exist.
And to assure Ahaz of the truth of this promise, God—through Isaiah—
invited the king to ask for a sign. Sadly, King Ahaz—in a display of false
humility—refused the offer Godmade. And so, God Himself establishes a sign
to the king.
It's then that we first hear this wonderful name. God says:
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name
Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse evil and
choose the good. Before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the
good, the land that you dread will be forsakenby both her kings (Isaiah7:14-
16).
* * * * * * * * * * *
Think about the mother that this promised one—Immanuel—would be born
to. The Hebrew word that Isaiahuses to describe her (almâ) is the one that
someone would use to describe a young girl who was about to become
married.1 And as we read on in the Book ofIsaiah, we find that Isaiah
actually went on to take a young woman—a prophetess—asa wife; and that
she, through him, bore a son(Isaiah 8:3). So;God's promise about this young
woman was most likely made while she was still a “virgin”.

And then, think about the child that this young woman would give birth to. As
we read on, we find that her son was given a real tongue-twisterof a name:
Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Thatname may have been hard for us to pronounce;
but its meaning was very clearto the Jewishpeople. It means, “Quick to the
plunder, swift to the spoil”.
This little boy with a long name—aboutto be born to one who was a virgin—
was a living “sign”;given by God to King Ahaz. It was given to assure him
that these threatening enemies in the north would indeed have their position
of power takenfrom them in a very short amount of time. In fact, as the Lord
says, they would forsake their lands before little Maher-Shalal-Hash-Bazwas
old enoughto know the difference betweenright and wrong (perhaps within
only three to five years).
* * * * * * * * * * *
Now;that's the story of the promise of a coming child in the days of Isaiah;
and the immediate, historic significance ofhis symbolic name "Immanuel"
But as we read on in Isaiah's prophecy, we make an even more remarkable
discovery. Not only was there an immediate historic significance to that name;
but there was also a significance for the future—one that extended far beyond
the concerns ofKing Ahaz, and far beyond the little baby that was born to the
virgin bride-to-be of Isaiah. The name "Immanuel" is applied through Isaiah
to another Child—a promised Ruler of His people. All of the land of Judah,
for example, is referred to as “Your land, O Immanuel” (8:8); and they were
told that the foreign nations that threaten them will not stand, because “God
is with us” (8:10).
The far-reaching significance ofthis is best shown to us in Isaiah 9:6-7;
because there, in the contextof this future promised Child, we discover His
true identity. In this much-loved passage,we readthese words of hope for
Judah--and for the world:
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 calledWonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase ofHis government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establishit with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this (Isaiah 9:6-7).
Do you see it? The child that God promised to Isaiah through his bride-to-be
was a real child. But he was also a “sign”—a “type”, if you will—of Another
who was yet to be born. “Here am I,” Isaiah says, “andthe 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). Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz,
nicknamed “Godwith us”, was but a symbolic picture of Another
“Immanuel” who would come later; One who would be referred to as “Mighty
God” and would rule over His people upon the throne of David forever.
We find the fulfillment of this promised birth in the very first chapter of the
very first book of the New Testament—some sevencenturies later.
In Matthew 1:18-25, we readthese words:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows:After His mother Mary was
betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of
the Holy Spirit. Then Josephher husband, being a just man, and not wanting
to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while
he thought about these things, behold, an angelof the Lord appearedto him
in a dream, saying, “Joseph, sonof David, do not be afraid to take to you
Mary your wife, for that which is conceivedin her is of the Holy Spirit. And
she will bring forth a Son, and you shall callHis name JESUS, for He will save

His people from their sins.” So all this was done that it might be fulfilled
which was spokenby the LORD through the prophet, saying, “Behold, the
virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name
Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Then Joseph, being aroused
from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his
wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And
she calledHis name JESUS (Matthew 1:18-25).
This week, we will enter into a celebrationof this wonderful Old Testament
promise—the birth of "Immanuel". We will hear His name mentioned again
and again—whetherornot we personally graspthe real significance ofthat
name.
But my hope this morning is that, by looking closerat the story of Jesus'birth,
we will—together—graspthat name's significance. Myhope is that the
meaning of that name will make a transition from our heads to our hearts;
and that it will move us with a deep sense ofwonder and awe over the One to
whom it points.
My prayer for us this morning is that we all take that name more seriously
than we have ever taken it before. Immanuel is a wonderful Person. And I
pray that we become transformed by a sense ofwonder at this one called
“Godwith us”.
* * * * * * * * * * *
First, look with me; and wonder at . . .
1. THE MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION OF 'GOD WITH US' (vv. 18-20).
We are accustomedto saying that Jesus’ birth was miraculous. Actually, as
far as we know, His literal birth was very normal. It was His conception—not
His birth—that was the true miracle. Matthew begins with a heading: “Now
the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows”;and he then proceeds to tell us the
whole story—not only of Jesus’birth, but of His miraculous and marvelous
conception.

Matthew tells us of the time when Mary was betrothed to Joseph—ata time
before they “came together”. In keeping with the customof that time, a young
woman would be “engaged” to her husband for about a year. During that
time, she would remain with her own family as a virgin, and the two would
live separatelyfrom one another. Nevertheless, hertie to her husband-to-be
was such a strong obligation that, if she were to have relations with another
man, it would be consideredthat she had committed adultery and was to be
punished by death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
Such a strong bond could not even be broken without a certificate of
divorcement—eventhough they had not yet “come together” in actual
marriage. And so, what a heart-break it must have been to Josephwhen he
discoveredthat his bride-to-be was pregnant.
Matthew tells us that Josephwas, literally, a “righteous” man—which
indicates that he was a man who was concernedwith doing what was in
keeping with God’s law. But, the same word can be translated “just”—which
suggeststhat Josephwas also a merciful man. And so, not wishing to subject
the womanhe loved to public shame, he made up his mind that he would
terminate the engagementand “divorce” her privately.
Can you imagine poor Joseph—a righteous but merciful man—as he lay in
bed that night, thinking about how he would have to go about this very
grievous task? Canyou imagine the sense of loss and grief he felt over what he
thought was betrayal on the part of the young woman he so deeply loved? And
can you imagine how hard it must have been to know that the Law of Moses
required he not marry her? I suspectthat he plotted and planned, and tried to
figure out the right wayto go about this difficult and painful obligation, until
he eventually fell asleepfrom exhaustion.
But it was then that an angelof the Lord appearedto him in a dream. Joseph
knew this to clearly be more than just a dream; because, as Matthew tells us,
he immediately gotup and acted upon it as a word from the Lord Himself.
The angeltold him, “Joseph, sonof David, do not be afraid to take to you
Mary your wife, for that which is conceivedin her is of the Holy Spirit”
(Matthew 1:20).

* * * * * * * * * * *
Matthew here presents us with the story from Joseph’s standpoint. But Luke,
in his Gospel, tells us the story from Mary’s experience. It’s an accountthat is
filled with mysteries that it’s not our place to delve into right now; but let me
at leastread it to you as Luke recordedit.
It follows after the story of Elizabeth, the relative of Mary who was six months
pregnant with John the Baptist. Luke writes;
Now in the sixth month the angelGabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee
named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of
the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And having come in, the
angelsaid to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed
are you among women!” But when she saw him, she was troubled at his
saying, and consideredwhat manner of greeting this was. Thenthe angelsaid
to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And
behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call
His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest;
and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will
reign over the house of Jacobforever, and of His kingdom there will be no
end.” Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a
man?” And the angelansweredand saidto her, “The Holy Spirit will come
upon you, and the powerof the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also,
that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed,
Elizabeth your relative has also conceiveda son in her old age;and this is now
the sixth month for her who was calledbarren. Forwith God nothing will be
impossible.” Then Mary said, “Beholdthe maidservant of the Lord! Let it be
to me according to your word.” And the angeldeparted from her (Luke 1:26-
38).
Mary knew all this before it happened. But all that poor Josephknew was that
his betrothed bride was pregnant. The truth of her condition had to be
authoritatively revealedto him that, indeed, his young virgin bride-to-be “was
found with child of the Holy Spirit” (v. 18). Jesus, though fully man through
His mother Mary, was also fully God in human flesh!

Let the wonder of that sink in this Christmas. When God calls His beloved
Son “Immanuel”, He meant Him to be known as “Godwith us” in the closest
possible sense. He means for us to understand that God the Son laid aside His
glory in order to be born into the human family and become one of us—
ultimately, in order to die on a cross for us! “Inasmuch then as the children
have partakenof flesh and blood, He Himself likewise sharedin the same, that
through death He might destroy him who had the powerof death, that is, the
devil, and releasethose who through fear of death were all their lifetime
subject to bondage” (Hebrews 2:14-15).
Remember that this Christmas, and let your heart be filled with wonder: He
became one of us! In that sense, He is Immanuel, “Godwith us”.
* * * * * * * * * * *
We also have cause to wonder at . . .
2. THE APPOINITED MINISTRYOF 'GOD WITH US' (v. 21).
The angeltold Josephnot to be afraid to take Mary as His wife. He assured
Josephthat the Child in her womb is conceivedin her of the Holy Spirit. And
then, the angelsaid, “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His
name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”
The name “Jesus”was a very familiar one in those days. In Hebrew, it’s the
same as the name ‘Joshua’. I have met many men named Joshua. And as a
matter of fact, I have met many men named “Jesus”. Isuspectyou have too.
But as common a name as it may be, it is also a very “uncommon” one. It's a
name that means “Yahwehsaves”.And in the case ofour Lord, the name has
particular importance, because the angelclearlyidentifies this Sonof Mary’s
as the One would “save His people from their sins.” He is being marked out as
the Saviorthrough whom Yahweh saves—andparticularly, saves from sin!
In designating Mary’s Son in this way, there’s a sense ofexclusivity. No other
“Joshua” canclaimto be “savior” in the way that his name indicates, because
no one else in human history has ever had an angelof the Lord come and
identify them as the one who would save people from their sins. But our

beloved Jesus has!And this exclusive designationis confirmed elsewherein
Scripture. Jesus Himself dared to sayto the Pharisees, “. . . If you do not
believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:23-24). He said, “I am
the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father exceptthrough
Me” (John 14:6). Petersaid, “Noris there salvationin any other, for there is
no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”
(Acts 4:12).
But in designating Him as “JESUS”—theOne who saves His people from
their sins—there’s also a sense of invitation. “For,” as the apostle Johntells
us, “Goddid not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that
the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:17). “Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ,” Paul said, “and you will be saved. . .” (Acts 16:31). “. . . If you
confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus,” Paulteaches, “andbelieve in your
heart that God has raisedHim from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans
10:9). Jesus is, as John the Baptist proclaimed, “The Lamb of God who takes
awaythe sin of the world” (John 1:29); and in heaven, those who are saved
will cry out, “Salvationbelongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the
Lamb!” (Revelation7:10).
How goodGod is to us! We were lostin our sins; and apart from His grace,
there would be no hope—no “way”. But God has provided “a way”;and He is
THE ONLY WAY. In this sense also, Jesus Christis “Immanuel”—“Godwith
us”. It was He whom the angeldesignatedas the One sent by God to save His
people from their sins.
Remember . . . and wonderat Him!
* * * * * * * * * * *
There's one more thing I'd like to point out from this divine 'birth
announcement'. We should wonder at . . .
3. THE PROMISE KEPT OF 'GOD WITH US' (vv. 22-23).
Following the announcement of the angelto Joseph, Matthew adds this
comment: “So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spokenby
the Lord through the prophet, saying, ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child,

and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which is translated,
‘God with us.’” The “all this” that Matthew mentions was the story just told
to us of Mary and Joseph. But he makes it clearthat it was done for a
purpose—“thatit might be fulfilled which was spoken” through Isaiah
Do you remember what Jesus saidto His disciples, after He appeared to them
after His crucifixion, His burial, and His resurrection? He told them, “These
are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things
must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Mosesand the Prophets
and the Psalms concerning Me” (Luke 24:44). This is a major theme
throughout the Gospels;that all that Jesus did—His birth and ministry, His
death and resurrection—were done in fulfillment of the Scriptures. This has
also always beena theme in the proclamationof the very messageofgospel
itself. As Paul once said,
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel, which I preachedto you,
which also you receivedand in which also you stand, by which also you are
saved, if you hold fastthat word which I preachedto you—unless you believed
in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received;that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried,
and that He rose againthe third day according to the Scriptures . . . (1 Cor.
15:1-4).
And this is true of the testimony of Jesus'birth as well. The Scriptures tell us
that the Messiahmust be the woman’s Seed(Gen. 3:15); and Jesus was. Ittells
us He must be of the lineage of Abraham (Gen. 12:3, 7; 17:7); and Jesus was.
It tells us He must come from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10); and Jesus was.
It tells us He must be of the House of David (2 Sam. 7:12-13);and Jesus was.
It even tells us where He must be born—in Bethlehem (Micah5:2-3); and
Jesus was. And now, on top of it all, we see that He must be born of a virgin
(Isaiah 7:14); and Jesus was born of a virgin—in fulfillment of the Scriptures!
It may be that men had forgottenthe promise of God that had been given
through Isaiah. After all, over seven centuries had passed. And yet, even
though men may forget, Godnever does. He remembers and keeps every
promise He makes. The promise was “spokenby the Lord through the

prophet”. And just as the prophetic Scriptures promised, Jesus—“Godwith
us”—has come into the world.
Jesus'birth, which we celebrate this week, is the keeping of a promise from
long ago. Godwas with His people then; and now, Jesus has come as
Immanuel in accordancewith God's promise—“Godwith us”.
Wonder at Him!
* * * * * * * * * * *
May I close with one more vision of Jesus as “Godwith us”? We find it at the
very end of the Bible, in the Book of Revelation. It's a descriptionof what God
intended to bring about by the coming of His Soninto this world, and it's a
picture that adds even more to the wonder.
Revelation21:1-4 tells us of the vision of the apostle John:
Now I saw a new heavenand a new earth, for the first heavenand the first
earth had passedaway. Also there was no more sea. ThenI, John, saw the
holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as
a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven
saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with
them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be
their God. And Godwill wipe awayevery tearfrom their eyes;there shall be
no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the
former things have passedaway” (Revelation21:1-4).
“GodHimself will be with them”! 'Immanuel' in the fullest sense!What hope
we have because of the birth of Jesus!
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall callHis name
Immanuel.” Let these things sink in deeply into your heart about Immanuel
this week—andwonderat Him!
1Herbert M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah (Grand Rapids:Academie Books,
1985), p. 258.

Misseda message?Check the Archives!
Copyright © 2007 BethanyBible Church, All Rights Reserved
DON FORTNER
“Joyto the world! The Lord is come!
Let earth receive her King!
Let every heart prepare Him room,
And heaven and nature sing!”
Christ is born; let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad! -- The Son of
God has come from heaven; let us embrace him! – Immanuel has come to the
earth; let us exalt him! – Oh, that all the earth might truly sing unto the Lord
with cheerful voice and worship at his footstooland glorify him! – He who is
of heaven came to the earth. He who is now of the earth has gone back to
heaven; let heaven and earth glorify him forever! – God took on himself flesh
and blood; let us then rejoice with trembling. – Tremble, because of your sins!
– Rejoice, because the incarnate God brings hope to sinners!
Why?
Why did the Son of God come into this world? It is goodto know that he
came;but that is altogethermeaningless anduseless, if we do not know why

he came and what he did. The purpose of our Lord’s incarnation is
specificallyrevealedin Holy Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ came here…
· To do the Father's will (John 6:38; Heb. 10:1-14).
· To bring in an everlasting righteousness (Dan. 9:24).
· To put awaysin by the sacrifice of himself (Dan. 9:24; Heb. 9:24-28).
· To save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21; John 10:16).
Very Old Message
This messageofhope arising from the incarnation of Christ is not new. It is
found all the way back in the Book ofGenesis (Gen. 3:15). There the Lord
God promised that he would send his Son as the Seedof woman to crush the
serpent’s head and undo the mischief of the fall.
(Genesis 3:15)And I will put enmity betweenthee and the woman, and
betweenthy seedand her seed;it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
his heel.
Then…
(Galatians 4:4-5) When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his
Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Today, I want to bring my messagefrom another of the ancient prophecies
of Scripture, a prophecy written by Isaiahhundreds of years before the Lord
Jesus Christ came into the world. Our text will be Isaiah7:14-15
(Isaiah 7:14-15)Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose
the good.
NeedSupplied
If our greatestneedhad been information, God might have sentus an
educator. -- If your greatestneedhad been technology, Godmight have sent
us a scientist. -- If our greatestneedhad been money, God might have sent us
an economist. -- If our greatestneedhad been pleasure, God might have sent
us an entertainer. -- But because our greatestneedis mercy, grace,
forgiveness, andsalvation God sentus his Son to be our Savior.
Interpretation
The “scholars”tellme that Isaiah 7:14 is one of the most difficult texts in all
the Word of God to interpret. I would never have imagined that if I had not
read what the “scholars” have to sayabout it. I admit that the other twenty-
four verses of this chapter may be difficult to understand. But verse 14 is not.
The first time I readthis text 33 or 34 years ago, I said, “This is a prophecy
about Christ my Savior.” Then I lookedat the cross reference in the margin of
my Bible and found Matthew 1:23. In that place the Holy Spirit tells us plainly
that Isaiah7:14 is a prophecy of Christ’s coming in the world. (We read
Matthew 1:18-23 earlier; but look at verses 22-23 again.)

(Matthew 1:22-23) Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
spokenof the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with
child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is, God with us.
You will forgive me if I ignore the “scholars”and just preach the message
of this text according to the interpretation given by the Spirit of God. -- “Hath
not God made foolishthe wisdom of this world?”
Context
Ahaz would not believe God. Therefore he would not obey the voice of God’s
prophet. Isaiahsaid, “Ask thee a signof the Lord,” a sign of God’s promise to
preserve and deliver his covenantpeople. But Ahaz, the godless wretch, said,
with an air of self-righteous indignation, “I will not ask, neither will I tempt
the Lord.” To that Isaiahreplied, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a
sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, andbear a son, and shall callhis name
Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil,
and choose the good.”
Proposition:This is a prophecy of the incarnation and virgin birth of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Divisions: Our text describes three things about our Savior:
1. His Virgin Birth.
2. His Holy Humanity.

3. His Glorious Name.
I. First, our text is a prophecy of THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST.
None of us knows the date of our Savior’s birth. God has wiselyhidden it
from men. The one day of the year that it could not have been is December25.
Christmas day has nothing to do with the birth of Christ. But our text does
describe a glorious birthday. It is true, Mary’s child was born in a manger, in
humility and poverty. But no other man had a birthday such as his.
· His birthday was anticipated by saints and prophets for four thousand
years.
· All the Old Testamentpointed to Immanuel’s advent.
· God hung a fresh lamp in the sky to announce his birth.
· The angelic hosts came down to sing at his birth.
· Shepherds and wise men came to bring presents to the Prince of the
kings of the earth when he was born.
Isaiah7:14 announces a glorious birthday. It announces the birth of a man
who is the eternalSon of God, the Savior of the world (Isa. 9:6-7).
(Isaiah 9:6-7) Forunto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince
of Peace. 7 Of the increase ofhis government and peace there shall be no end,
upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish

it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of
the LORD of hosts will perform this.
A. The prophet’s language speaksofa miraculous conception. -- “Behold, a
virgin shall conceive.”
Our Saviorwas born as a man, the seedof the woman. He was conceivedin
the womb of the virgin Mary by the miraculous intervention of God the Holy
Spirit (Gal. 4:4-6).
1. His holy body was prepared in the womb of the virgin for the work he had
come to do (Heb. 10:4-5).
(Hebrews 10:4-5) Forit is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats
should take awaysins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldestnot, but a body hast thou prepared me:
2. Had he been born of the flesh, as an ordinary man, of the seedof a man,
the Lord Jesus couldhave done nothing to save us.
B. Our text also speaks ofa humble parentage.
Virginity was Mary’s highest honor. It is true, she was of the royal seedof
David’s house. But that was no greathonor in her day. It gave her no special
privilege, power, or position.

1. Our Saviorwas born in poverty and lived in poverty all the days of his life,
by his own choice.
2. He taught us, by constant example, to despise the froth of worldly treasure
and position. -- Will we ever learn to follow his example and live by faith in
God?
3. There is much encouragementhere…
· He who was born in poverty, will visit the poor in spirit.
· He who was laid in a rock manger, will visit our hard, stony hearts.
· He who humbled himself, will be the friend of humbled broken-hearted
sinners.
C. Our text also displays God’s sovereignelection. -- “A virgin shall conceive.”
There were, no doubt, many virgins in the world in those days, but God chose
one, only one to be the agentthrough whom he would bring his Son into the
world (Luke 1:26-33).
(Luke 1:26-33) And in the sixth month the angelGabriel was sent from God
unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espousedto a man
whose name was Joseph, ofthe house of David; and the virgin's name was
Mary. 28 And the angelcame in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly
favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessedart thou among women. 29 And when
she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and castin her mind what
manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angelsaid unto her, Fearnot,
Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt
conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord

God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign
over the house of Jacobfor ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
1. Mary was freely chosenof God. -- So are we.
2. Mary was highly favoredby God. -- So are we. -- “Acceptedin the
Beloved.”
(Luke 11:27-28) And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain
woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessedis the
womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hastsucked. 28 But he said,
Yea rather, blessedare they that hear the word of God, and keepit.
3. Mary was visited by God. -- So are we.
4. Mary had Christ formed in her. -- So do we.
5. Mary was blessedof God for Christ’s sake. -- So are we.
6. Mary rejoicedin God her Savior. -- So do we - (Luke 1:46-50).
(Luke 1:46-50) And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my
spirit hath rejoicedin God my Saviour. 48 For he hath regardedthe low estate
of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shallcall me
blessed. 49 For he that is mighty hath done to me greatthings; and holy is his
name. 50 And his mercy is on them that fearhim from generationto
generation.
II. Second, our text speaks ofOur Savior’s Holy Humanity -- (v. 15).

(Isaiah 7:15) Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the
evil, and choose the good.
The word “that” in verse 15 should be translated “when,” or “but,” or “and,”
anything but “that.” If you could figure out how eating butter and honey will
cause a man to know to refuse the evil and choose the good, you can soon
make yourself very rich.
The text should read, “Butter and honey shall he eat;and he shall know to
refuse the evil, and choose the good.”
A. Our Lord’s eating butter and honey suggeststhat He would be born
during a time of peace in Israel.
Butter and honey are things people rarely take time to make and gatherwhen
war ravages the land.
B. Eating butter and honey is a declarationof our Savior’s real humanity.
We rejoice in his deity. But we equally rejoice and give thanks to God for the
humanity of our Savior. -- There was nothing unusual and distinctive about
the Lord Jesus but his sinlessness. OurSavior, our God, is a man like us (Heb.
2).
C. Spiritually, the butter and honey may refer to the grace that is poured into
His lips for His people -- (Ps. 45:2).

(Psalms 45:1-2) To the chief Musician upon Shoshannim, for the sons of
Korah, Maschil, A Song of loves. -- My heart is inditing a goodmatter: I
speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen
of a ready writer. 2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured
into thy lips: therefore God hath blessedthee for ever.
· Covenant Grace.
· Interceding Grace.
· Saving Grace.
· Preserving Grace.
· Cleansing Grace.
D. The next sentence describesthe perfectholiness of our Savior.
“Butter and honey shall he eat.” That tells us of Christ’s humanity. -- “And he
shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.” Thatis his holiness.
Throughout the days of his life, our Lord Jesus refusedthe evil and chose
the good.
· In The Wilderness.
· In The Garden.

III. Third, I want you to look back to verse 14 again. Here Isaiahproclaimed
THE GLORIOUS NAME OF OUR SAVIOR. -- “Thou shalt callhis name,
Immanuel.”
You know what that means. -- “God with us.” Spirit of God, teachus the
meaning of this glorious name given to our Savior. His name is “Godwith us.”
– The Lord Jesus Christ is God with us!
· Godis with us by incarnation to redeemus.
God is with us by his Spirit to protect, guide, and comfort us.
God is with us in our assemblies to bless us.
God with us is hell’s terror.
God with us is his servant’s strength.
God with us is the suffering believer’s consolation.
God with us is the dying believer’s hope.
God with us is the song and joy of heaven.
God with us means that the darkness is past, for the Sun of Righteousnessis
risen with healing in his wings! – God with us is a wall of fire about us! – God
with us means that old things have passedawayand, behold, all things have
been made new! – God with us means that the shadows have fled and the
former things are gone. – God with us means that Sinai’s darkness and
thunder and terror is forever ended! – God with us means that Aaron order is
replacedby Melchizedek. He who is without mother as God and without
father as man, the God-man, has arrived! – The laws of nature are upset. –
The world is confused. – The heavens rejoice and sing, because Gods is with
us! – Oh, clap your hands, let your hearts dance, let your souls burst out with
praise, God is with us!

He who is pure Spirit, he who is God, has become a man. Yet, he is still
God, perfectly and fully God! – He who is the same yesterday, today, and
forever, the immutable God, is Jesus Christ the God-man, Immanuel! – Let
the Jews be offended. Let the Muslims take up arms. Let the wiseacresofthe
earth deride. Let heretics everywhere yak until their tongues are worn out on
their teeth. – Jesus Christ is Immanuel, God with us! – God come to save! –
We will rejoice and sing!
“Hark! The herald angels sing,
‘Glory to the new born King!
Peace onearth and mercy mild, --
God ad sinners reconciled!’
Joyful, all ye nations, rise,
Join the triumph of the skies;
With angelic hosts proclaim,
‘Christ is born in Bethlehem!’
Christ, by highestheaven adored,
Christ the everlasting Lord:
Late in time behold Him come,
Offspring of the virgin’s womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,
Hail the incarnate Deity!
Pleasedas man with men to dwell,

Jesus our Emmanuel.
Hail the heaven born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and life to us He brings,
Risenwith healing in His wings.
Mild He lays His glory by,
Born that man no more may die,
Born to raise the sons of earth,
Born to give them secondbirth.
Come, Desire of Nations, come!
Fix in us Thy humble home:
Rise, the woman’s conquering Seed,
Bruise in us the serpent’s head.
Adam’s likeness now efface,
Stamp Thine image in its place:
SecondAdam from above,
Reinstate us in Thy love!”

Grace Journal10.2 (Spring 1969) 19-25. [Copyright© 1969 Grace
TheologicalSeminary; cited with permission; digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and Grace Colleges andelsewhere]
DEVELOPMENTOF THE INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH 7:14 A Tribute
to Edward J. Young
EDWARD E. HINDSON
In the interpretation of Isaiah7:14, three basic positions have been
historically takenby commentators:1) that the reference is only, to an
immediate event, of the prophet's own day; 2) that it refers only to the
Messiah;3) that it refers to both. The first position has been generally held by
those who have denied the unity of the book's structure and supernaturalness
of the content.1 There have, though, been exceptions such as Orelli who
denied the unity and held the direct messianic interpretation of 7:14.2 From
the time of the reformers most evangelicalshave held the second, viewpoint.
Calvin early reflectedthis view, maintaining the Christologicalinterpretation
of Isaiah seven.3 Early writers like Bishop Lowth and the Baptist minister,
John Gill also held the messianic interpretation of this passage.4However,
during the middle of the nineteenth century, especiallyafterthe publication
of Duhm's work, the conceptof immediate contemporary fulfillment of all of
Isaiah's prophecies became widespread.5 Unable to stem the rising flood of
opinion, many conservatives retreatedto a dual-fulfillment position,
especiallyon this particular passage.6Thus, the position of the reformers,

who saw fulfillment only in Christ, was abandoned. This influence affected
the interpretation of the entire Immanuel passage, whichcame to be viewed
by many as merely symbolic.7 Barnes represents this viewpoint in advocating
that "some young female" would bear a sonwhose name would indicate
God's blessing and deliverance. He maintains that only in this way could
there have been any satisfactoryand convincing evidence to Ahaz. However,
he continues that though this is the obvious meaning there is no doubt that
the language is so "couched" as to containapplication to a more significant
event that was a sign of God's protection. He concludes that "the language,
therefore, has at the commencementof the prophecy, a fullness of meaning
which is not entirely met by the immediate event."8 Beecheralso accepted
this viewpoint in asserting that the first event of the prediction adequately
fulfills it, but that it is completely fulfilled in a series ofevents that lead to
final culmination. 9 This conceptwas historicallyparalleled by the
conservative thinking that the prophet, did not know the implication of what
he wrote and that his prophecy had “room for” a fuller applica-
Edward E. Hindson holds the M.A. in Biblical Studies from Trinity
EvangelicalDivinity School, a postgraduate student at Grace Theological
Seminary. 19
20 GRACE JOURNAL
"tion. For example, Ellicott maintained that in the New Testamenttimes the
prophecies were seento have been fulfilled by events in Christ’s life even
though that meaning was not present to the prophet's own mind.10 A
contemporary of these men was Dewartwho criticized the views of leading

liberals and the condescensionoffellow conservativessuchas Barnes,
Fairbairn, and Riehm.11 He argues that the true picture of the prophet is
given in the Epistles of Peter, who tells us that they did know what they were
writing of when they wrote. He challenges conservative writers to evaluate
the implications of advocating that the prophets did not know the true
meaning of what they wrote. He asks whatthis does to our conceptof
inspiration in bending it toward a dictation concept. His book provides several
excellentdiscussions onkey passages andis very helpful, though it is very
little known today.12 The Dutch theologian, GustavOehler, also criticized the
conceptof "double- fulfillment in the Isaiahseven passage.He felt that the
whole context of chapters 7-9 clearlyintends, a direct Messianic
interpretation. He admits, "The interpretation now prevailing regards it as
only typically Messianic.13 His view was followedby Briggs who also
criticized seeing a double-fulfillment in the Isaiah passage.He maintained
that a "typical correspondence" is not a direct prediction, for if it can have a
"multiple fulfillment" then it was never really a prediction as Matthew
obviously regarded it.14 He sees the sign presentedto Ahaz as assignedto the
future and, therefore, no immediate fulfillment was to be seenby either Ahaz
or Isaiah.15 Hengstenberg also maintained that the Christian church had,
from the time of the Church Fathers, upheld the direct messianic explanation
of Isaiah 7:14. He states that it was not until the mid-eighteenth century that
writers beganto turn from this view. He admits that by the mid-nineteenth
century it had gainedto the point of prevailing over the historic
interpretation.16 Cowles also criticizedthe growing double-fulfillment
influence upon conservative writers. He gives a thorough discussionof the
problems createdby the double-fulfillment interpretation of Isaiah7:14. He
concluded that a dual-fulfillment view of the prophecy is really a "single-
fulfillment" view in that only the first event is really predicted and the latter
one is merely an "analogy."17He asks some very searching questions, such as
why did not the prophet structure the passageto "allow" a multiple
meaning? He stressesthat the use of the definite article the verb tenses imply
that the prophet has only one person in mind.18 Many exegeticalwriters
such as J. Alexander and F. Delitzschstood for the “Single fulfillment" view
of this passage.19 However, mostof the homiletical commentaries written by
conservatives adoptedthe dual-fulfillment view and thus it came into the

American pulpits.20 Many contemporary conservative writers have continued
the influence of the multiple fulfillment interpretation of Isaiah7:14. These,
however, are generally representedin shortercommentaries and journal
articles, since there have been no recent conservative commentariesoflength
on Isaiah exceptthe appearance ofEdward J. Young's work.21Writers such
as W. Mueller have advocatedthat we should acceptthe R. S. V. translation
of 'almah as "maiden" and
DEVELOPMENTOF THE INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH 7:14 21
use it as an acceptable working basis to present a further correspondence in
the passage to the life of Jesus.22 In his book on hermeneutics, Berkhof
discusses the conceptof successivefulfillment in prophecy and indicates that
he leans toward a double-fulfillment view of this passage.23Writing very
excellentbooks on the Gospelof Matthew, H. N. Ridderbos and R. V. G.
Taskeralso indicate, while commenting on Matthew 1:23, that they see a
multiple-fulfillment in the Isaiah 7:14 passage.24The fine conservative
German writer, Erich Saueralso indicates that he accepts the conceptof
double-fulfillment when the appearance of a "type" fulfills part of the
prediction and when "this type is also fulfilled in the Messianic
development."25 The only recentextensive conservative commentary on
Isaiahthat holds a dual-fulfillment view of Isaiah7:14 is the work by the
Plymouth Brethren writer, F. C. Jennings, who maintains that Immanuel is
the prophet’s son. He adds that this alone, however, cannotfulfill vv.14-l5.26
Since then two major one-volume conservative commentaries have been
published that represent a dual-fulfillment view of the Isaiah 7:14 passage.27
Being very fine works representative ofthe bestBritish and American
evangelicalscholarship, they are certain to help establish dual-fulfillment
interpretation for many years to come. Fitch (N. B. C.) sees bothan
immediate and ultimate fulfillment in the Immanuel passage. He emphasizes
that we cannot separate the passagefrom its messianic emphasis.28Archer
(W.B.C.)presents an excellentcase forviewing the prophet's wife as being
typical of the virgin Mary. He relates the fulfillment both to the prophet's son
and ultimately to Christ.29 Among the recent critics of the dual-fulfillment

conceptof prophecy the most outspokenhave been J. Barton Payne of
WheatonCollege and Bernard Ramm of California Baptist Theological
Seminary. Payne criticizes Fairbairn's "overdone" typologywhich he refers
to as a "modified form of dual-fulfillment."30 He states that if one read only
the New Testamentit would be safe to say that he would never suspectthe
possibility of dual-fulfillment because the New Testamentindicates that the
predictions refer directly to Christ.31 Ramm warns that "one of the most
persistenthermeneutical sins" is attempting to place two interpretations on
one passageofScripture, thereby breaking the force of the literal meaning
and obscuring the picture intended.32 concludes that if prophecies have
many meanings, then "hermeneutics would be indeterminate."33
List of RecentEnglish Language Commentaries onIsaiah and Their View of
Isaiah7:14
MESSIANIC NON-MESSIANIC DUAL-FULFILLMENT
Henry (1712) Lowth (1778) Micaelis (1778) Clark(1823)Hengstenberg
(1829) Alexander (1846) Barnes (1840)Simeon(1847) Meyer(1850)
Keith (1850)Luzzatto (1855)Delitzsch(1866)Cheyne (1868)
22 GRACE JOURNAL
MESSIANIC NON-MESSIANIC DUAL-FULFILLMENT
Cowles (1869)
Ewald (1876)

Birks (1878) Kay (1886) Driver (1888)Smith (1888) Sayce (1889) Dewart
(1891) Orelli(1895) Skinner (1896,)Oesterley(1900) MacClaren(1906)
Naegelsbach (1906)Robinson(1910) Gordon(1909) Gaebelein(1912)
Gray (1912) Rawlinson(1913) Plumptre (1920)Exell(1925)
Williams (1926)
Torrey (1928)Rogers(1929) Wade (1929)Boutflower(1930)Kissane (1941)
Copass (1944)Kelly (1947) Aberly (1948)Jennings (1950)Vine (1953)
Fitch (1954)Interpreter's Bible (1956)Blank (1958)Shilling (1958)Mauchline
(1962) Archer (1962 Young (1965) Leslie (1965)
It may be noted from this chart that as the non-messianic interpretation
gained impetus in Germany and beganto influence writers in England and
the United States during the last of the nineteenth century, conservative
writers of the early twentieth century began to adopt position earlier
advocatedby Barnes and Keith.34 At the same time there was a noticeable
drop in commentaries advocating a strictly messianic fulfillment. Meanwhile
the criticalviewpoint continued to gain acceptance,especially with the
publication of Gray's work as part of the International Critical
Commentary.35 Such interpretation has a firm foothold today in liberal and
neo-orthodox interpretation. The conservative works advocating single-
fulfillment since Orelli were really more study-guides and devotional
commentaries, so that Young was right when he wrote in 1954 that "since
1900 no truly greatcommentaries upon Isaiah have been written.”36 He
declaredthat a greattwentieth-century commentary must be written to break
with the influence of Duhm.37 He calledfor the writing of a new
commentary.38 Elevenyears later he
answeredhis owncall with the publication of volume one of such a
commentary.39 It is a defense of the unity of the book's authorship and of the
Messianic interpretationof the Immanuel passage.Dr. Young's death in 1968

came as a great shock to the world of Biblical scholarship. Yet it was
gratifying to learn that he had completedthe draft of the third volume of his
commentary on Isaiah. We are all deeply grateful for God's providence in
this matter. Dr. Young has gone to a greaterrewardbut he has left us a
tremendous legacyin his greatwork on the Book Isaiah. Certainly he has
written the "truly great commentary upon Isaiah" of the twentieth century.
DOCUMENTATION
1. See suchexamples as S. R. Driver, Isaiah: His Life and Times (London:
Nisbet and Co. 1888);Gray, The Book ofIsaiah Vol. I (New York: Scribner's
Sons, 1912); Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia(Gottingen, 1922);Boutflower, The
Book ofIsaiah (London: SPCK, 1930);Mowinckle, He That Cometh (New
York: Abingdon, 1954);Mauchline, Isaiah1-39 (New York: Macmillan,
1962);Leslie, Isaiah (New York: Abingdon, 1963);G. Knight, Christian
Theologyof the Old Testament(London: SCM, 1964). 2. C. Von Orelli, The
Prophecies ofIsaiah(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895). See Calvin's position
in Commentary on the Book ofIsaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), p.
246. 4. Lowth, Isaiah(Boston:Buckingham, 1815--originallypublished in
1778)and Gill, Body of Divinity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1951, reprint of
1771 edition). 5. Duhm, op. cit. For a gooddiscussionof Duhm's methods and
the influence he exerted upon other writers see Young, Studies, pp. 39-47. 6.
Discussedby H. Ellison, Men Spake From God (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, n.
d.), p. 14. 7. A. B. Davidson, Old TestamentProphecy (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, n. d.), p. 268. 8. A. Barnes, Notes onthe Old Testament--Isaiah, Vol. I
(Grand Rapids : Baker, n. d.), p. 158. 9. W. Beecher, The Prophets and the
Promise (Grand Rapids: Baker, n. d.), p. 130. 10. C. Ellicott, Bible
Commentary For English Readers (London: Cassell& Co., n. d.), p. 438. 11.
See the excellentdiscussionon the viewpoints of his contemporary writers on
Isaiah 7:14. He mentions Riehm, Orelli, Oehler, Green, G. A. Smith, Gloay,
Davidson and Cheyne. Dewart, Jesus the Messiahin Prophecyand

Fulfillment (Cincinnati: Cranston & Stowe, 1891), pp. 128-29. 12. Ibid., pp.
64-73. He provides an excellentcriticism of the radical viewpoints of Work-
man who advocatedthe view that there is nothing in the Old Testamentthat
refers to Christ. 13. G. Oehler, Theologyofthe Old Testament(New York:
Funk & Wagnallis, 1883; reprint Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n. d.), p. 527.
14. C. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy(New York: Sons, 1892),p. 197. 15. Ibid.,
p. 197.
24 GRACE JOURNAL
16. Hengstenberg, A Christologyof the Old Testamentand a Commentary on
Messianic Predictions,Vol. III (Grand Rapids: Kregal, 1956;reprint of 1829
ed.), p. 48. Perhaps the reasonDewart's fine work has become almost
unknown is because of Hengstenberg's poorfootnotes and mis-pagination of
his writing. Nevertheless, Hengstenberg'svolumes are excellentand his notes
are very useful. 17. Cowles,Isaiah:With Notes (New York: Appleton & Co.,
1869), p. 53. This is also a very fine work that has generallybeen overlooked
by most writers. 18 Ibid., p. 54. 19. Alexander, The EarlierProphecies of
Isaiah(New York and London: Wiley & Putnam, 1846), pp. 111-114;and
Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament:Isaiah, Vol. I (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949;reprint of 1877 ed.), pp. 216-21. 20. See the
comments of A. MacClaren, Expositions ofHoly Scripture: Matthew I-VIII
(New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1906), pp. 10-11. In his commentary on
Isaiahhe completely skips over the 7:14 passage!In his reference to Matt.
1:23 he accepts the dual-fulfillment position. He states:"the fulfillment does
not depend on the question whether or not the idea of virginity is contained
in the Hebrew word, but on the correspondencebetweenthe figure of the
prophet. . . and the person in the gospel." Fora criticism of the conceptthat
prophetic fulfillment is merely a "correspondence"see E. J. Young,
"Prophets" in Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. M. Tenney. (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), p. 689. He warns: "We must guard againstthe
view that there is merely a correspondence betweenwhat the prophets say

and what occurredin the life of Jesus Christ. There was of course a
correspondence,but to sayno more than this is not to do justice to the
situation. Jesus Christ did not merely find a correspondence betweenthe
utterances of the prophets and the events of His own life. . . so we may say or
the entire prophetic body, they saw Christ's day and spoke of Him.” 21.
Young, The Book ofIsaiah in New International Commentary series. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965)22. W. Mueller, "A Virgin Shall Conceive,"
EvangelicalQuarterly, Vol. XXXII. No. 4 (London: October, 1960), pp. 203-
207. Fora goodcriticism of this viewpoint see the article by W. Robinson, "A
Re-Study of the Virgin Birth of Christ." EvangelicalQuarterly, Vol. XXXVII.
No.4 (London: October, 1965), pp. 198-211 and C. Feinberg, "Virgin Birth in
the Old Testamentand Isaiah7:14." Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 119 (Dallas:July,
1962), pp. 251-58. 23.L. Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1950), pp. 137-38. 24. H. Ridderbos, Matthew's Witness to
Jesus Christ (New York: AssociationPress, 1958), p. 21 and Tasker, Gospel
According to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), p. 34. Tasker
sees the original intention of the prophecy as signifying the birth of
Hezekiah. He maintains that it is Matthew's indication that Isaiahwas not
really fully aware of the far-reaching consequences ofhis own prophecy. 25.
Sauer, Dawnof World Redemption (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), pp.
146-47. He classifiesallpredictions that dealt with events in the gospels and
the church age as "spiritually and typically" predictive. This seems to indicate
that he does not see a passagelike Isaiah7:14 as directly predictive of Christ.
He also lists on pp. 161-62 events relating to the work of the Messiah,
beginning with his "birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), but he makes no
reference at all to Isaiah 7:14; therefore,
it is difficult to determine his position on that passage,but his leaving it out
indicates that he does not considerit directly messianic. Fora criticism of
Sauer's view of predictive prophecy see J. B. Payne, "So-CalledDual
Fulfillment in Messianic Psalms" in Printed Papers of the Evangelical
TheologicalSociety (1953 meeting at Chicago), pp. 62-72. Jennings, Studies in

Isaiah(New York: Loizeau Brothers, 1950), pp. 84-85. He argues that Isaiah's
sons are referred to as "signs" in chapter eight and, therefore, Immanuel
must be either Maher-shalal-hash-baz or a third (unknown) son. This is the
same position takenexactly a century earlierby A. Keith, Isaiah As It Is
(Edinburgh: Whyte & Co., 1850), pp.67-69. 26. F. Davidson(ed.). The New
Bible Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954);and C. Pfeiffer and E.
Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago:Moody Press, 1962).
28. W. Fitch, "Isaiah" in N. B.C., p. 569. 29. G. Archer, "Isaiah" in W.B.C.,
p. 618. 30. Payne, op. cit., p. 64. 31. Ibid., p. 65. 32. Ramm, Protestant
Biblical Interpretation (Boston:Wilde, 1956), p. 87. 33. Ibid., p. 88. 34. There
is goodreasonto doubt whether Keith canactually be considereda
"conservative."35. Gray, The Book ofIsaiah (New York: Scribner's Sons,
1912). 36. Young, Studies in Isaiah(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), p. 72.
37. Ibid., p. 72. 38. Ibid., p. 100. 39. In 1965 Eerdmans of Grand Rapids
published Vol. I of a projectedthree-volume commentary on Isaiahby E.
Young, entitled The Book ofIsaiah. It is the initial volume of the New
International Commentary series;on the Old Testament. Much of its
contents are a compilation of Dr. Young's earlier works:Studies in Isaiah
(1954);Who Wrote Isaiah? (1958)and the appendix material in the revised
edition of R. D. Wilson's Scientific Investigationof the Old Testament
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1959).
This material is cited with gracious permissionfrom: Grace Theological
Seminary 200 Seminary Dr. Winona Lake, IN 46590 www.grace.edu
Please reportany errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: thildebrandt@gordon.edu
CONTEXT AND CONTENT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH
7:14*

By J. A. MOTYER
It is a problem common to the study of all prophetic texts how to make a
legitimate appeal to the work of editors and insertionists in order to
understand the meaning of a passage orsection. Regarding the passage in
hand, for example, Duhm proposes that verse 17 is a glossator's clumsy
attempt to link Isaiah 7:1-16 with 18-25, and considers verses 18-25to be
the work of 'a collectorofIsaianic fragments'.1 Kissane, however, urges that
'the problem here is really one of interpretation' and further comments:
'Various critics omit 15 or 16 or 16b or 17;but the sole reasonfor the
omissionis the difficulty of interpretation.'2 The matter may be put thus: it
is not that the conceptof the editing of a prophetic text or book is itself at
fault, but that it appears not to be takenwith sufficient seriousnessby those
who appealmost frequently to it. The 'editor' must not be made a scapegoat.
Rather than treat him as one who juxta- posed two passageswhichseemedto
him to be coherent but are easilyseenby us not to be so, we should and must
assume him to be an intelligent publicist of the mind and matter of his
subject. And if, as seems to be the case, there is increasing readiness to allow
that the prophets could and did act as their own editors, then all the more
must we seek to implement the principle of the priority of exegetical
considerations. Itis not unrelated to our present task to pursue this principle
briefly in connectionwith the 'Servant passages'. Itis no- torious that they
have suffered through detachment from their contexts, their similarity of
style and content and their alleged non-relatedness to foregoing and following
sections being held
* A paper read at the Old TestamentStudy Group of the Tyndale Fellowship,
at Tyndale House, Cambridge, July, 1969. 1 B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia,4

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen(1922) ad loc. 2 E. J. Kissane, The
Book ofIsaiah, Browne & Nolan, Dublin (1960)81.
THE INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH 7:14 119
up in justification. Out of this have flowed the monumental complications of
the question of the identity of the Servant of the Lord. With a brevity which
mocks the magnitude of the subject, we may summarize the whole sectionas
follows:the Lord's purposes of grace for His people raise the problem of the
plight of the remaining major portion of humanity (e.g. 41:28, 29). To this,
the Lord's reply is the universal commission of His Servant (42:1ff.). But this
Servant cannot be national Israel, for though this Israelbears the honoured
title (42:18, 19)it does so in dishonourable fashion, having been given into
the powerof the nations in punitive divine action (42:24), and even at that
unrepentant (42:25). Yet the Lord's purposes for His people have not failed.
The enslavementwill be reversedand they will return home, but on their
return they are still unreconciled to God (48:20-22). Therefore the Servant's
task must be rephrased to include the nation along with the Gentiles in a vast,
universal work of reconciliation (49:1-6). Farfrom being in any sense
identifiable with the nation, or even with the best of the nation, the Servant,
by contrastto their faithless despondency (49:14ff.) displays buoyant and
confident obedience (50:4ff.), and they are called on to play the role of
spectators (52:13)while he performs the individual and vicarious role of sin-
bearer. If we were to ask the time-honoured question: Who is the Servant?
we could saythat in these chapters the prophet tries out a series of
indentifications: first with Israel(41, 42), then with Cyrus (43-48), then with
the remnant (49-51)until, all having failed, the Servant necessarilyremains a
coming individual with soteriologicalaims and accomplishments on a uni-
versalscale. It is germane to our more immediate purpose to notice that
Isaiahis not afraid to allow false identifications to stand pro tem (just as, for
example, the writer of detective fiction casts suspicions here and there), until
the telling of the whole story clears awaymisconceptions, andthe very
entertain- ing of the misconceptionitself contributes to the final under-
standing of the whole. This is certainly the case withthe Immanuel prophecy.

As will be shown, the very circumstances ofthe communica- tion of the
prophecy required the possibility that some of its features would be
misunderstood, but the narration of the
120 TYNDALE BULLETIN
‘whole story’ made the final position clearand unequivocal The Immanuel
prophecy is presented as a divinely given ‘sign’. We need to notice at once the
ambivalence of the use of the 'sign' in the Old Testament. Firstly, the sign is
used in the sense of a 'present persuader', i.e. it is designedto promote some
actionor reactionin the immediate present. With such signs Moseswas sent
to the people in Egypt (Ex. 4:8, 9). With such a sign the false prophet of
Deuteronomy 13 would move the people to adopt his novel theology. Just
such a sign was offeredto Ahaz (Is. 7:10, 11): a magnificent divine gesture
which would reassure him of the Lord's power and goodwilland promote
policies basedon faith in the Lord as thus revealed. The balancing phrases
'ask a sign' (verse 1) and 'the Lord will give you a sign' (verse 14)have led to
the supposition that Immanuel is also a. sign of this order. Is this supposition
correct? The alternative understanding of 'sign' is that it is a 'future
confirmation', i.e. it is designedto follow a series ofevents, to confirm them as
acts of God and to fix a stated interpretation upon them. Exodus 3:12 is a
sign of this order. The gathering of Israelon Sinai seals the divine
commissionto Moses andconfirms as from God the forecastofthe course
and significance of the events leading up to the sign. There is a prima facie
case forsaying that Immanuel must have been immediately recognizedas a
sign of this second order: firstly, because onany interpretation his birth
would be too late to prompt Ahaz to the desired position of faith in the Lord:
the die would have been castalready;and secondly, because his involvement
in a situation yet to come—the desola-tion of the lands of the treaty powers
(verse 16)—shows that he can only actas a subsequent verificationof the
present word from God. We may take this matter further by asking whether,
as a sign, Immanuel sets forth hope or threatening—or, in order to be more
exact, whether hope or threatening occupies the foregroundof the prophecy,
for if we are speaking ofthe God ofIsrael neither canbe wholly absent and

certainly hope cannot be omitted. Three features suggestthat the aspectof
threat and forebod- ing fills the foreground of the prophecy. In the first place
THE INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH 7:14. 121
there is the distinct change from the gracious offerof a sign from ‘Yahweh
your God' (verse 11) to the unaskedimposing of a signby a wearied
'Sovereign'God (verses 13, 14). Secondly, we are informed that Immanuel as
a child will eat'butter and honey' (verse 15), which is interpreted (verse 22)
as the food of a small remnant in a land shearedby the enemy (verses 19, 20)
and luxuriating in uncheckedwild growth(verses 23ff.). It looks againas if
Immanuel comes to confirm as from the Lord an act and state of judgment.
The third factorwhich suggeststhat Immanuel is a sign of divine displeasure
is the generaltenor of the whole passageas summed up in verses 8, 9.
Contrary to the opinion in many commentaries, there is no need to find
intrusive material in these verses. In fact, to withdraw any part of them is to
destroy the balance which they possessas they stand. In two matching lines
(‘. . . the head of Syria . . . Damascus. . . the head of Ephraim . . .') the
members of the confederacyhostile to Judah are mentioned; and in the two
associatedlines (‘With- in . . . If you will not believe . . .') the future of the two
sister nations of the people of God is sketched. The two matching statements
about the confederate powers, Syria and Ephraim, are certainly intended to
comfort and reassure Ahaz. Either they affirm that the kings mentioned will
never reign over any but their allotted territory: i.e. so to say, Rezin is the
head of Damascus—ofthat and nothing else! Or, alternatively, we may find
an implication that Ahaz should apply a similar reasoning to Jerusalem,
Judah and himself: that is to say, the head of Judah is Jerusalem, and the
head of Jerusalemis the Davidic king, underwritten by divine guarantees—or
even that the head of Jerusalemis the royal Yahweh, the true King of Isaiah's
vision (6:1). The perplexity of the commentators regarding the interwoven
statementthat within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken arises from the
supposition that the word of comfort is here continued. They rightly ask, in
such a case, whatcomfort it would be to the beleagueredAhaz to know that
over half a century ahead all will be well! But this is a misunderstanding of

the line. Rather we ought to understand the two halves of verse 8, taken
together, as raising the question of the use and outcome of foreignalliances:
Ephraim, trusting in its alliance
with Syria, will pay for it by national extinction. The word is a word of
warning and it aptly finds its parallelin the straight threat to Ahaz: 'If you
do not believe, certainly you will not be established'(verse 9b). For Ahaz was
facedwith strict alternatives:trust in Yahweh's promises or alliance with the
king of Assyria. Thus Immanuel is deeply implicated in a situation of
threatening, and it looks as if his birth will confirm as from God a condition
of unparalleled loss and devastation. In what dimen- sions is this threat
foreseenby Isaiah? The answeris, not just a threat to Ahaz as the reigning
monarch but to the dynasty of David of which he is the current
representative. This can be traced through the whole sectionand is one of its
uniting features. Thus, in verse 2, the 'house of David' is brought before us,
though the singular pronoun 'his heart' shows that the individual king Ahaz
is in mind: he is in mind, that is, not simply in his ownperson but as the
current embodiment the dynasty. In verse 9, as we have seen, the
‘disestablishment’ of Ahaz lies in parallel with the disintegration of Ephraim
as a national unit, and thus points to some termination of the Davidic—
Judahite state. Furthermore, in verse 13, the address is not to the unbelieving
Ahaz but to the 'house of David’ caughtup by implication in his faithlessness,
and this passage terminates with a sinister reminiscence ofthe greatest
Davidic tragedy to date, the schism of the northern tribes (verse 17). So far
our enquiry may be said to have elicited three facts: first, Immanuel's birth
follows at leastthe presently coming events;second, he will be born at a time
when the Davidic dynasty will be 'disestablished'; and third, because he is
called Immanuel, the situation cannot be devoid of hope. We can only
appreciate the sweepof Isaiah's thought along these lines by considering the
Immanuel prophecy in the context of the pattern of chapters 7-11. Theywork
out as a prophetico- historicalmeditation on the times of the Assyrian Crisis,

and the two amazingly parallel sections focus attention respectively on Judah
and Ephraim:
(1) 7:1-17 9:8-10:4 THE MOMENT The Lord's word comes The Lord's
word comes to OF to Judah. On the king's Ephraim. A wealthof
DECISION decisionhangs the imminent divine anger future of the
dynasty. awaits disobedience.
THE INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH 7:14 123
(2) 7:18-8:8 10:5-15 THE The Assyrian Invasion: The Assyrian Invasion:
JUDGMENT Damascus and Samaria Samaria has fallen; are despoiled;
Judah Judah is under threat; overwhelmed as by an the punishment of all
but fatal flood. Assyria is certain. (3) 8:9-22 10:16-34 THE The foes of
God's The destruction of the REMNANT people are doomed, but king of
Assyria; the His people are secure. salvationofa remnant It is not,
however, an of Israel; the dramatic unconditional security: deliverance of
Zion. those who rejectHis word are without hope. (4) 9:1-7 11:1-16 THE
The birth and reign of The perfectionof the GLORIOUS the Davidic Prince
Davidic Prince, and His HOPE brings victory, joy reign over the Gentiles
and peace to His people, and over a re-gathered and His reign ever extends.
Israeland Judah.
This display of chapters 7-11 might now be completed into what could be
called'The Book of Immanuel' by showing how the visionary chapters 6 and
12 act respectivelyas prologue and epilogue, but the immediate purpose of
the exercise has beento demonstrate that the Immanuel passage belongsto a
closelyand cleverly integrated setting from which it must not be severedand
without which it cannot be understood. One factis immediately clear:it is
impossible to confine the Immanuel prophecy to any long-forgotten
'fulfilment' in the time of Ahaz. The content of Isaiah 7:14 does not dwell in
isolation. It belongs to a connectedand indeed interwoven series. Immanuel is

the possessorofJudah (8:8); he is the ultimate safeguardagainstthe
machinations of the nations (8:10) ―Isaiahcould not have used the
reassuring words 'God is with us' unless with a direct reference to the child
whose name this was;Immanuel, consequently, is the great'prince of the
four names', the heir and successorofDavid (9:6, 7), and in the light of 10:21
the interpretation is irresistible that the one born in David's line is also
unequivocally divine, 'the mighty God'; he is additionally the Prince of
righteousness andpeace, sovereignovera reconciledworld (11:1ff). Seenin
this light, not only does the name Immanuel receive its full meaning, but one
of the tensions within chapter 7 is resolved. The para- dox of chapter 7 is that
Ahaz is called to rest himself confi- dently upon the promises of the Lord as
being absolutely
reliable and irrevocable, and yet, consequentupon his unbelief, the promises
are apparently abrogated. Immanuel both confirms that the devastationwas
the punitive actof God― this, by being born to inherit the disestablished
dynasty—and also by his name and deeds he proclaims that the promises
were indeed kept, and wonderfully so. Secondly, seenin the light of its total
context, the Immanuel prophecy is found to be interlaced with tensions on the
topic of the time of its fulfilment. On the one hand, it has as its context the
times of the Assyrian (see 7:17ff.; 8:8; 9:1ff.; 10:34-11:1). But equally it
seems to belong to the undated future. Thus 9:1 looks back to the darkness of
the Assyrian times and forward to the 'latter time' in which the birth will
take place. Again, 11:1 belongs to a time when Judah as well as Israel will
have been re-gatheredfrom world-wide dispersal(verses 11, 12), yet
according to 8:8 and 10:33 the Assyrian overran but did not destroyJudah.
What a genuine tension this is may be seen by the factthat the two elements
in it are found straining away at eachother in the same verses and sub-
sections. We will try to put ourselves into the situation in which Isaiah was
placed. At leastthree important factors were involved. Firstly, Isaiah
proceeded, from the start, from the knowledge ofthe ultimate fall of Judah
and Jerusalemand the captivity of the people (see 6:9ff.). This, coupled with

his awarenessthat the Assyrian was not to be the instrument of this
destruction, would necessarilyinvolve the projecting of the ultimate hope into
the undated future. Secondly, Isaiah was fully aware ofthe crucial
seriousness ofthe coming Assyrian threat—contrary to the political
speculations ofAhaz. It was for this reasonthat he introduced the second
child into the sequence of prophecies (8:1-4), allowing Maher-shalal-hash-baz
to take over from Immanuel the task of providing a time-schedule for the
immediately coming events. Indeed, it is essentiallyright to see the relation-
ship of these two children as follows:either we must identify Maher-shalal-
hash-baz with Immanuel, or we must project Immanuel into the undated
future. These are real alternatives, but the first of them is self-evidently
impossible. Isaiah, thirdly, was involved in the necessityof facing Ahaz with
the devastating implications of his choice. Ahaz belonged
THE INTERPRETATIONOF ISAIAH 7:14 125
to a situation of expectation. He was the Davidic king, both heir and
transmitter of the promises of God. Isaiahchoosesto try to force him to see
that he can put and indeed is putting the promise into jeopardy by the
apparently bald statement that he is the immediate precursor of the prince
Immanuel, and that because ofAhaz and the faithless decisionto rely on
Assyria the Messianic Immanuel will inherit a defunct dynasty and a
pauperized, overrun and captive land. The biblical claim that the Immanuel
prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus Christ is not only and obviously justified, but
also by its own terms helps further to illuminate Isaiah's forecastand to
substantiate the main lines of the foregoing exposition. It is clearthat Jesus
alone has the credentials to claim the divine- human ancestryand nature, the
righteous characterand worldwide rule prophesied for Immanuel. Clearly
also in Him the full implications of Immanuel's birth of the ‫ה‬ָ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ַ‫ע‬ are realized.
As an examination of biblical usage will show, ‫ה‬ָ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ַ‫ע‬ is the only Hebrew word
which without qualification means an unmarried woman—however
marriageable she may be. Its rival in this discussion, ‫ה‬ ְ‫ותע‬ַ‫,ע‬ too often requires
some such additional description as 'neither had man known her' (e.g. Gn.
24:16; Jdg. 11:37-39;etc.)to merit serious considerationas a quasi- technical

term for virgo intacta. Matthew, therefore, performed no exegeticalsleightof
hand in translating Isaiah 7:14 with the word parthenos.3 Finally Jesus
inherited what Ahaz initiated. The summoning of the Assyrian king to the aid
of Judah turned out to be that moment of final heart-hardening which Isaiah
had been forewarnedthat he would live to see and would indeed bring to pass
by his prophetic work (6:9ff.). From that moment onwards, and apart from
brief respites which in the sweepof history are but candle-flickers ofthe glory
that once was, the Davidic house had lostits sovereignty, and so it was
destined to remain until He should come to whom the kingdom and the
kingdoms belong, and whose right it is to reign.
3 Cf. E. J. Young, Studies in Isaiah, Tyndale Press, London (1954)164-185.
WIL POUNDS
Isaiah7:14 God with Us
The Hebrew prophets went from one crisis to another. They lived on the heels
of political intrigue. One of the greateststatesmenand spokesmanforGod
during that chaotic age was Isaiah.
Scholars suggestthat perhaps as much as twenty years rapidly passes between
Isaiahchapters six and seven. The sixteen–yearreignof Jotham, the son of
Uzziah of Judah, has passedwithout a word from Isaiah. Then we jump from
the death of King Uzziah, at the beginning of Jotham's reign to his son, King
Ahaz. With a quick stroke of the pen Isaiah takes us from the long righteous
reign of Uzziah to his idolatrous grandson who sacrificedhis ownson to a

pagangod of Molech. The kingdom of David had sunk to the condition of
faithless, godless pagans.
Politically things were as bad as they were spiritually. Assyria was the
superpowerwho threatened its neighbors. Judah's two neighbors to the north
were threatening Ahaz, so he hired the king of Assyria to protecthim. Ahaz
sackedthe Temple in Jerusalemof all the vessels ofsilver and gold and sent
them to the king of Assyria as payment for his protection. He played the
superpoweragainstthe neighboring states. Ahaz forgotthat when you give a
mouse a piece of cheese he then wants the whole glass ofmilk.
The Syro-Ephraimitic warin 735 B.C. involved this coalitionwith the
Northern Kingdom of Israeland Syria againstAssyria. King Jothamof Judah
continued his father's policy of independence and steadfastlyrefusedto join in
the coalitionagainstAssyria. At this time Egypt tried to make a bid for power.
However, in 735 Israeland Syria stagedan attack on Judah and were within
three days of entering the land of Judah. This sent King Ahaz and his cabinet
into panic (Isaiah 7:1–2). Ahaz's heart "and the hearts of his people shook as
the trees of the forest shake with the wind." Psychologicalwarhad done its
trick. The national leadershipwas in a panic.
What does Yahweh have to sayin a time of crisis?
The LORD God is Sovereign(vv. 3–9)
The LORD sent His spokesmanto King Ahaz (v. 3ff). Isaiahis commanded to
take his son Shear–jashubwith him out of the city to the water reservoirto
meet Ahaz who is inspecting the water supply in preparation for the siege of
the city by Israeland Syria. Jerusalemdidn't have a natural source ofwater,
so it had to be brought in and stored.
There is a beautiful play on words in Isaiahthat reinforces his message. His
name means "Yahwehis salvation," or "Salvationof the LORD." Shear–
jashub means, "a remnant shall return." The kid doesn't say a word. He just
accompanies his father to the end of the conduit at the Fuller's Field. His
name says it all. Only "a remnant shall return" if you do not take Yahweh at

His word and believe Him for your salvation. Let Yahweh be your salvation
and a remnant will return.
God's message to Ahaz and his royal cabinet is you have nothing to fear,
therefore trust in the LORD. Take care, and be calm, have no fear and do not
be fainthearted because these two pieces ofsticks have already burned out
and are just a lot of smoke. Syria and Israelare nothing more than two
burned out sticks and there is not enough life left in them to flame up again.
They are just a trickle of smoke, like burned out stumps. They are literally
"fire–stirrers." Theyare powerless.
Historically, within 65 years the Northern Kingdom of Israel would be taken
captive and Syria would be destroyedby Assyria (2 Kings 15:29;16:9). It took
place just as God said it would. Isaiah's sarcasmcomes alive when he doesn't
even mention the name of Pekah, but the son of Remaliah, "the son of
nobody" (v. 4). The name of the puppet king they had planned to install was
the sonof Tabeel, meaning "goodfor nothing" (v. 6). Out of disrespect, Isaiah
doesn't even mention the guys' names. Don't panic, God is sovereign. Don't
waste your time and energy on these idle threats from nobodies.
I think one of the reasons GodsentIsaiah to meet Ahaz at the laundryman’s
field was so there would witnessesto the encounter. Since there was plenty of
wateravailable in that spot it may have been a gathering place where people
in Jerusalemcame to washtheir clothes. Their ears must have burned, too, as
they heard the prophet saying if Judah believed Yahweh, they had a future, if
not their doom was sealed. Theywill endure only if they continue in faith;
otherwise they will not be established.
King Ahaz already had his mind made up. He clung to his stubborn unbelief
(2 Kings 16:7–8).
Ask for a sign (vv. 10–17)
God told Ahaz to choose a sign as evidence that the message is true. Make it as
difficult as you like. "Ask a signfor yourself from the LORD your God; make
it deep as Sheol or high as heaven" (v. 11). Ask for a miracle, Ahaz. It will be
a pledge of divine certainty. It will prove the Word of God. The king hasn't

openly denied the God of his father David at this time. He is even granted the
liberty of penetrating as deeply as he wished into the providence of God. Go
ahead, Ahaz, ask Him! What will it be? Rememberthat God is the One who is
graciouslygiving Ahaz the opportunity to ask for anything! What would you
have askedfor? How would you have responded to the invitation?
Ahaz would not ask, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!" (v. 12).
His response is evidence of pious unbelief. The king knows that if he did
choose a signand the LORD demonstrated Himself he would be obligatedto
believe and obey Him. Ahaz did not want to be accountable to God. Even in
our day, God has revealedHimself with undeniable signs and testimonies and
still men do not believe because they will not. "I will not ask, nor will I test the
Lord," is a mask for stubborn unbelief.
Probably by now every personstopped what he was doing and silence fell over
the scene. Youcould have heard Sprint's pin drop in dead silence as the
prophet's blood beganto boil.
"Listen now, O house of David!" Isaiah shouts. "Is it too slight a thing for you
to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?"
When God proposes a sign, it is not a test. It is an opportunity and privilege to
obey, and when we obey we experience God.
Therefore, since Ahaz refused to ask for a sign, God went ahead and gave him
one. It was God–sized. It was not a MickeyMouse sign.
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with
child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel (v. 14).
Huh. What did he say? No doubt, Ahaz wishes to this day he had gone ahead
and askedsomething, anything from the LORD.
Almah is the Hebrew word here and it signifies a marriageable young lady of
unblemished character. A womanwith such a reputation would be classified
as a virgin. The best translation for almah is "virgin" with the alternate
reading "young woman" or "maiden" in the margin. She is a young woman
or maiden with the reputation of being a virgin. She didn't have to blush when

the subjectcame up. She had kept herself pure. Both the usage and context
support our translating "virgin" in this passage.In the context of God's
messageto Ahaz we are led to expect something very unusual. It would not be
unusual for a maiden to conceive. However, fora virgin to conceive would
fulfill the necessarymeaning of the sign in the context of chapter seven. This
sign would be a tremendous encouragementto the faith of the remnant of
Israel. It would also bring judgment and condemnation to the unfaithful in
David's household. Thus, judgment and salvation are evident in the promised
sign.
There is anotherHebrew word for virgin, bethulah, signifying a young
maiden living in seclusionin her parent's house and still a long way from
matrimony. However, almah would fit our context better meaning a
marriageable young lady of unblemished characteror reputation. It is true
she is a young woman or maiden, but that is not the comprehensive
understanding of the word. She is a young woman of marriageable age who
has never known a man sexually.
God with Us
If you have a problem with the "virgin" conceiving and bearing a child that
should be nothing in comparisonto the thought of Immanuel––God with us in
the flesh. That is the greatestfeat. How else could the "Word become flesh
and dwell among us" than by means of a virgin becoming pregnant and
bearing a son? God in the flesh means "Godwith us." The child to be born
will be calledImmanuel; therefore, the translation "virgin" is demanded in
the sentence. Itis nothing short of a miracle, and that is exactly where the
problem lies with those who want to reject"virgin" in Isaiah7:14. If you do
not want to believe in miracles then you will have a problem with this sign to
Ahaz.
The child calledImmanuel will be a specialchild and will embody the truth,
"Godwith us." This specialchild born of a virgin will be God among His
people. Only as we look into His face, listen to His voice and see Him in action
do we know what God is really like (Hebrews 1:1–3).

All of Christianity rests upon the foundation of this prophecy in Isaiah
chapter seven. God meant the sign to be earth shaking. God meant it to be
such a sign that when it was actually fulfilled in history men would stand back
and say, I saw God do it! It is something only God can do.
The sign of Immanuel, "Godwith us," is the coming of the child of a virgin.
That sign was fulfilled in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Nothing in history approaches the mystery, beauty and glory of the LORD
God coming to be with His people.
God sent Gabriel to Mary and said, "Behold, you will conceive in your womb,
and bear a son, and you shall name Him, Jesus. He will be great, and will be
calledthe Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of
His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacobforever;and His
kingdom will have no end" (Luke 1:31–33).
Mary got rather upset with the angel. "How can this be, since I am a virgin,"
she demanded (Luke 1:34). There is no question about the Greek word she
used. The word for "virgin" always means a marriageable young woman who
had preservedthe purity of her body. She kept herselfsexually pure. If the
child were illegitimate it could not be a sign. The whole context of the Bible
rules it out. If the birth was out of the ordinary, and unusual because she was
a virgin then it is of such a magnitude that God has come to be with His
people and deal with their sins. There is only one personin history of whom it
can be said that He was God incarnate, God with His people, and that is Jesus
Christ. The very presence ofthis child, born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem
cannot be applied to anyone else. Jesus the Christ is the Son of the Virgin and
the Mighty God.
The deity and preexistence ofChrist demanded this miraculous conception
and Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ.
"And the angelansweredand said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon
you, and the powerof the MostHigh will overshadow you; and for that reason
the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God. . . For nothing will be
impossible with God" (Luke 1:35, 37).

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had
been betrothed to Joseph, before they came togethershe was found to be with
child by the Holy Spirit. . . . And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His
name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sin. . . . And
Joseph. . . kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he calledHis
name Jesus" (Matthew 1:18–25,etpassim; cf. Luke 2:1–21). They named Him
"Jesus."Theynamed Him after His Father! They calledHim Joshua. The
original full form is Jehoshua, meaning "Yahwehour salvation," "Yahweh
saves," Yahweh's salvation."
"Godwith us." Now we know what He is like. This could only be true when
the Word became flesh and dwelt among His people in the person of the
Anointed of God. Oh, the wonder of wonder, Godin the corporealself–
manifestation to His people. He is a super–human person. He is the
incarnation of deity. This coming child would be God among His people. John
1:1–3, 18, 18;14:14–20;Colossians 2:9–10;
The godly Charles Wesleywrote:
"Offspring of a Virgin's womb;
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail th' incarnate Deity."
If you have never put your faith in Jesus Christ as your personalSavior,
please take a few moments to reflectover A Free Gift for You. It is our prayer
that you will come to know Him as your Savior.
Title: Isaiah7:14 God with Us
Immanuel: The Right Choice Series
Contributed by John Phillip R. Pesebre onDec 6, 2012
based on 10 ratings

(rate this sermon)
| 17,666 views
Scripture: Isaiah7:14
Denomination: Baptist
Summary: As Isaiah reminds Ahaz to believe in God’s security we are also
reminded by the Christmas seasonto trust in the Immanuel.
1 2 3
Next
Introduction
Around the year720BC, God’s chosennationwas already a divided nation:
there was the Northern Kingdom, calledIsrael ruled by a king named Pekah;
and there was the Southern Kingdom, now calledJudah, ruled by an able but
misdirected leadernamed Ahaz. There were small tribal wars nearby and
there was a looming empire up north in Assyria. The Assyrian empire who
was then led by a mastermaniacal named Tiglath Pileserwas alreadybullying
everyone in that part of the world. It will only be a matter of time before
before every civilization falls under the cruel dominion of Assyria. But for
now, smallerkingdoms are doing conquests oftheir ownwithin their
neighbors. In short, the smaller nations are at war with eachother.
These small nations include the neighboring: Israel, Judah and Syria (not to
be mistaken from Assyria). Israel wanted to conquer Judah but Judah seems
a formidable fortress, so Israelforgedan alliance with its northern neighbor
Syria to attack the Southern Kingdom of Judah. This strategic alliance, called
the Syrio-Ephraimite alliance is the beginning of a long line of conflictfor this

regionfor the nation of Yahweh. The events that happened here were so
crucial that it “pavedthe way for the prolongedperiod of foreign domination
that continued beyond the time of Christ” ( J.A. Motyer, s.v., “Ahaz,” in Bible
Dictionary, J.D. Douglas, ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987], 26.)
Why this story is important for us is because ofa watershedmoment for a
king at a crucial time. A watershedmoment is a point in time that marks an
important, often historical change. This Christmas season, we are also faced
with this challenge. We callJesus Immanuel. Today, in this sermon we will
talk about how that term Immanuel came to be in the Bible, what is its role in
the unfolding drama of redemption and what it would mean for us today.
BIG IDEA: ISAIAH REMINDS AHAZ TO BELIEVE IN GOD'S SECURITY
Ahaz, king of the Southern Kingdom of Judah, learned from his prophet
Isaiahthat
5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son
have plotted your ruin, saying,
6 "Let us invade Judah;
let us tearit apart
and divide it among ourselves (Isaiah7:5-6 NIV)
His southern brothers, the Israelits or Ephraimites, are planning to attack
him in alliance with a pagannation of Syrians. Ahaz – ruler, military
strategistwith a bad moral compass -- made some wrong decisions despite the
fact that his trusted prophet gave him some pretty specific instructions:
Video Illustration of the Week
Get weeklyvideos including full access to all illustrations, sermons, and
church media.
Free With PRO →
7'It will not take place, it will not happen, 8 for the head of Aram is
Damascus, andthe head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years

Ephraim will be too shatteredto be a people. 9 The head of Ephraim is
Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son. If you do not stand
firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.' " 10 Again the LORD spoke to
Ahaz, 11 "Ask the LORD your Godfor a sign, whether in the deepestdepths
or in the highest heights." (vv. 7-11 NIV)
Isaiahinstructed him to ask the Lord for a sign but he refused saying, “"Iwill
not ask;I will not put the LORD to the test." (v. 12 NIV). This disobedience
foreshadows forAhaz a bittersweetfuture. Yes God will save him from the
Syro-Ephraimite invasion, but it will eventually lead to his downfall as Isaiah
gives him a strange prophecy,
20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River--the king
of Assyria--to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your
beards also. (v. 20 NIV)
So yes, the “Immanuel” passage ofverse 14 is a passageofsalvation,
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child
and will give birth to a son, and will callhim Immanuel" (v. 14 NIV).
But it is a salvationfrom the first invasion, the first onslaught. In effect this
work is not complete, for the simple reasonthat the salvation that comes from
God is complete. What will happen here is that the nation of God will fall into
bondage preparing the way for the Messiah, the real Immanuel to complete
the story. This Christmas season, the Immanuel will remind us againthat He
is our peace and that His presence must not be traded for anything less. In the
face of threat we may well ask:“What makes the people of God secure? How
do we keephold of our God-givenpossessionand privileges? Isaiahanswered
these questions with one word: faith!.
In many ways our struggle is like the struggle of Ahaz. We know God is good
but we think we are BETTER. This is the reasonwhy we rush mindlessly; we
become impatient; we worry; we become anxious; we are driven towards the
wrong solutions;we swallow our food in gulps; we eat our troubles away; we
become addicted; we are arrogant, we are proud. We are better, in our hearts
we say. The apostle Pauladmonishes us, “Forby the grace given me I say to
every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, (Rom

12:3 NIV)” Yet we do the exact opposite. The wise man said, “Pride goes
before destruction (Proverbs 16:18).
Justwhat exactlyhas Jesus done to remove any boasting onour part for this?
DONE: SALVATION THROUGHJESUS
The “Immanuel” prophecy in the Isaiahpassagedoes notlook like it’s totallya
greatnews. Yes, the Syro-Ephraimite invasionwill not succeedbuteventually
and we know this in history that this begana series ofdownfall for the nation of
Judah. After Assyria helped Judah, Judah became a vassal state ofAssyria. A
vassalis “Aholder of land by feudal tenure onconditions of homage and
allegiance.”So yousee, this was theirownland – givento them by God,
rightfully theirs but now they are a vassal in their ownland. How ironic! Later
on whenthe mightier Babylonianhordes startedinvading lands including
Jerusalem, Assyria wasnotthere to rescue them. In 605BC, Babylonstarted
conquestofJudah. The Assyrians were nowhere to be found. In 586BC, the evil
NebuchadnezzarleveledJerusalemto the ground. The PromisedLand was
now a piece ofrubble – dusty and forgotten-- as the promise ofAssyrian
protection.
In many ways I could not discountthe factthat many of you probably had
experiences inlife whenyou become rubbles. Familyproblems, substance
problems, angerissues, loneliness, depression, financialwoes, sickness, fearof
death – andmany more. Ijust don’t think a believeris immune to these
difficulties.
It is in this kind of situationthat we find our storyof Christmas. Yes, the people
of Godwere able to return to Jerusalemso thatin the time of Malachi we see
them back to their promised land, administered by their ownMosaic lawsonce
again.
When we readabout “Immanuel” in Matthew chapter1 we are told that the
Saviorwill be born and “he will save his people from their sins. ( v. 21 NIV). It
seems thatthey are back to square one. True enough, inchaptertwo we are
told that Israel’s ruler was a paganking, “during the time of King Herod (2:1
NIV). This is drastic situationagain. This was Egypt. This was Babylononce

again. Butthis time, the lastKing has returned. With this King, the promise of
redemption has arrived. The time ofbondage has ended!
Pastor, have youclaimedyour 14 day PRO trial?
Enter your name and emailto begin. Creditcard required, cancel anytime.
Plus, getemailupdates & offers from SermonCentral. Privacy
This is the reasonwhybelievers ofthat time, although they were still under the
clutches ofthe Romanempire were as free as birds. In Christ they found
meaning in life, they found purpose, freedomfrom their bondage, formtheir
sin.
33 Who will bring any charge againstthose whomGodhas chosen? Itis God
who justifies. 34 Who is he that condemns? ChristJesus, who died--more than
that, who was raisedto life--is atthe right hand ofGod and is also interceding
for us. 35 Who shallseparate us from the love ofChrist? Shalltrouble or
hardship orpersecutionorfamine or nakedness ordangerorsword? 36 As itis
written: "Foryour sake we facedeathallday long; we are consideredas sheep
to be slaughtered." 37 No, inall these things we are more than conquerors
through him who lovedus. 38 ForI am convincedthat neither death nor life,
neither angels nordemons, neitherthe presentnor the future, nor any powers,
39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in allcreation, willbe able to
separate us from the love ofGod that is in Christ Jesus ourLord. (Rom8:33-39
NIV)
DO: DUTIESOFTHEBLESSEDPEOPLE
I also knowthatyouknowyourtemptations. If Ahaz hadmilitaryalliancewith
Assyriaashistemptationandhe gavein youalso haveyour owntemptations:
pornography,gossipping, addictions, wrongfriends, wrongrelationships, quick
temper, aimlessbusy-bodying, family neglect, andmanymore.
ThisChristmas, letChristbeyourImmanuel. I knowit isdifficult. Someof your
areangry,bitter, worried, in sin. That’snottheworsepart. Theworsepart is
you thinkyou cansolvethison your own – likeAhaz.

ThisChristmasseason, itistimeto repent andseekGod.
ACTIONPOINT: LEARNFROMA.H.A.Z.
A – Accept yourmistakes. Givetimeto reflectaboutyour life.Consideryour
ways.
Pastor, haveyouclaimedyour14dayPROtrial?
Enteryournameandemailto begin.Credit card required, cancelanytime. Plus,
get emailupdates& offersfromSermonCentral. Privacy
H – Humbleyourself in repentance. Confessto Godor to a trustedbrethren.
A – AppreciateGod’sgrace. Dedicatea worshiptimeto Jesus – singingpraises
or hymnsandofferingup prayerof thanksgivingto God.
Z – Zealfor God’swork. Makestepsto beof useto God’sministry.
SPURGEON
Spurgeon'sMorningandEvening
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel."
- Isaiah7:14
Let us to-day go down to Bethlehem, and in company with wondering
shepherds and adoring Magi, let us see him who was born King of the Jews,
for we by faith can claim an interestin him, and can sing, "Unto us a child is
born, unto us a son is given." Jesus is Jehovah incarnate, our Lord and our

God, and yet our brother and friend; let us adore and admire. Let us notice at
the very first glance his miraculous conception. It was a thing unheard of
before, and unparalleled since, that a virgin should conceive and bear a Son.
The first promise ran thus, "The seedof the woman," not the offspring of the
man. Since venturous woman led the way in the sin which brought forth
Paradise lost, she, and she alone, ushers in the Regainerof Paradise. Our
Saviour, although truly man, was as to his human nature the Holy One of
God. Let us reverently bow before the holy Child whose innocence restoresto
manhood its ancient glory; and let us pray that he may be formed in us, the
hope of glory. Fail not to note his humble parentage. His mother has been
describedsimply as "a virgin," not a princess, or prophetess, nor a matron of
large estate. True the blood of kings ran in her veins; nor was her mind a
weak and untaught one, for she could sing most sweetlya song of praise; but
yet how humble her position, how poor the man to whom she stoodaffianced,
and how miserable the accommodationaffordedto the new-born King!
Immanuel, God with us in our nature, in our sorrow, in our lifework, in our
punishment, in our grave, and now with us, or rather we with him, in
resurrection, ascension, triumph, and SecondAdvent splendour.

Jesus was immanuel

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Jesus was immanuel

More from GLENN PEASE

Recently uploaded

Jesus was immanuel