SUBJECT: Virgin Birth—Immanuel and Isaiah 7

QUESTION: If this Immanuel spoken of in Isaiah 7 was born of a miraculous 'virgin birth' just as Jesus was, does that experience

also make him a deity and the Savior?

ANSWER:

No.  Jesus Christ is the only savior. 

First let us look at the verses in question:

Isaiah 7:1-16

1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.

2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.

3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,

6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:

7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

14 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.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

QUESTIONS AT HAND: 

Was a child born of a virgin in the presence of Ahaz?  If so, was it a diety the same as Christ and if so, does that not make this child born of a virgin before Ahaz a second Savior?

1) Was a child born of a virgin in the presence of Ahaz?

Yes.  Notice the commentary:

Isaiah 7:14-25

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

A virgin shall conceive. The word for virgin here is carefully chosen. Etymologically (`alma) does not necessarily signify a virgo intacta (an untouched maiden). In actual usage in the Hebrew Scriptures, however, it refers only to a maiden chaste and unmarried (so far as the context shows). This well fits the prospective mother allude to in this situation. Judging from Isaiah 8:1-4, the typical mother was the prophetess who became Isaiah's wife within a short time after this prophecy was spoken. Therefore she was a virgin at the time this promise was given. She serves as a type of the Virgin Mary, who remained a virgin even after her miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. The son of this prophetess, correspondingly, is a type of the Messianic Immanuel. ~from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary

Note:  This physical birth of a baby was a type of the birth that would take place with Mary.  Notice that the meaning of the word virgin in this physical birth is specific.  It refers only to a maiden chaste and unmarried.  She serves as the type of Mary and the physical child as the type of the Jesus who would be born to Mary.  This use of type is used over and over again in the Bible especially in regard to prophecy.

Also regarding the point made in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary that Mary remained a virgin even after her miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit:  The meaning here is that she remained a virgin until the birth of Christ and then, of course she began having normal sexual intercourse with Joseph and had children.  Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Now notice that the physical child was born in the next chapter:

Isaiah 8:1-4

1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

Notice the commentary now as we link the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 with the physical baby born to Isaiah and his wife:

Isaiah 8:3

And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hashbaz.

Then said the LORD - The name thus given was to be emblematic of a particular event-that Assyria would soon take away the spoil of Damascus and Samaria. It is not remarkable that the name Immanuel should also be given to the same child, as signifying the presence and protection of God in defending the nation from the invaders; see the notes at Isa 7:14-15. Calvin thinks that all this passed in a vision before the prophet; but it has every mark of being a literal narrative of the birth of a son to Isaiah; and without this supposition, it is impossible to understand the account contained here. ~from Barnes' Notes

Thus we see that the physical baby was physical and not a God.  The virgin was a maiden chaste and unmarried.  The father was Isaiah.  The baby was not a God and is not a savior.

THERE IS MORE:

Here is the word “virgin” used in Isa. 7:14

OT:5959

`almah (al-maw'); feminine of OT:5958; a lass (as veiled or private):

KJV - damsel, maid, virgin.

~Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary

Note:  The word does not denote a virgin birth in the idea of the Holy Spirit making her pregnant.  There is no explanation anywhere showing how the damsel of Isaiah 7:14 gets pregnant.  The prophecy simply states that a virgin will conceive and bear a son.  For Mary in the New Testament there is a specific explanation of how Mary was made pregnant:

Matthew 1:18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Note:  There is no explanation for the damsel spoken of in Isaiah 7:14.

Now there is a specific statement made about the baby Mary has:

Matthew 1:21

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Note:  This child, born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit saves people from their sins.  Though the baby of Isaiah 7:14 is a type of the baby born of Mary, it does in no way save the people from their sins.

THIS SUBJECT ON THE INTERNET

There are a number of web sites that speak to Isaiah 7 and specifically verse 14.  Some call it the most controversial subject in scripture.

Here is an excerpt from one site we found:

The identity of the mother of Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 has been a subject of debate over the

     centuries: Was the prophet Isaiah speaking of a virgin conceiving or not? The Gospel of

     Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14, linking Jesus' conception to the sign the prophet Isaiah had given

     centuries earlier. Those who believe the gospel account regard Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic

     passage fulfilled by Jesus. Others disagree. Did the prophet intend that word to mean "virgin"

     or merely "young maiden"? Are Christian interpreters reading too much into this verse? Zhava

     Glaser presents the case for you to decide for yourself:

     The word almah is rare--usually translated as "maiden" it appears only ten times in the

     Hebrew Scriptures, six of these in the plural and four in the singular. Some say the word

     almah is merely the feminine of elem, or "young man."

     In the few verses where almah appears, the word clearly denotes a young woman who is not

     married but is of marriageable age. Although almah does not implicitly denote virginity, it is

     never used in the Scriptures to describe a "young, presently married woman." It is

     important to remember that in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was

     presumed to be chaste.

     The prophet could have chosen a different word had he wanted to describe Immanuel's mother

     as a virgin. Betulah is a more common way to refer to a woman who has never been with a

     man (both in biblical and modern Hebrew).  ---end of excerpt---

Note:  We agree with this excerpt.  We believe and have shown the word to be “almah” rather than “betulah”.

Here is an excerpt from another site we found:

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible gives a prophecy of the name of Jesus. It says, "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." If we go

 to Matthew 1:21, it says, "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His

 people from their sins." (See also, Matthew 1:25; Luke 1:31; 2:21). Is this a contradiction? No. It is not.

      In ancient times names were often given as representations of the hopes and dreams of the parents or even of

 recognition of divine assistance. Names in the Old Testament had understandable meanings. For example: Abram

 means "exalted father," but Abraham means "Father of a multitude." Some names could even be translated into

 complete sentences as in Uzziel (‘God is my strength’ - Exodus 6:18), Adoniram (‘my lord is exalted’ - 1 Kings 4:6),

 and Ahimelek (‘my [divine] brother is king’ - 1 Samuel 21:1).

      So names are more descriptive in the Hebrew and Greek then they are in English. They often refer to the

 character, purpose, etc., of the one being named. The closest we come to understanding this is in Native

 American culture. We are familiar with such names as "Running Bear," or "Pretty Eagle, "or "White Owl" as

 names. These names meant something and were far more descriptive than "Bob," or "Tom," or "Sue."

      When we come to Isaiah 7:14, we encounter a prophecy about the Messiah stating that his name will be

 Immanuel. Immanuel literally means "God is with us." This is a significant because Jesus is God in flesh:

---end of excerpt---

Note:  We concur with this excerpt.

I visited hundreds of sites on Isaiah and specifically Isaiah 7.  I could find no sites anywhere on the Internet that speak to there being two Saviors.  In fact, I found many sites (regarding Isaiah 7) that maintain there was NO VIRGIN BIRTH EVER.  These, of course, are certain Jewish and atheist sites who are anti-Christ.

LOGICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SECOND SAVIOR USING THE BIBLE AS THE BASIS OF THIS LOGIC

This section speaks to the second of the QUESTIONS AT HAND above:  2) If so, was it a deity the same as Christ and if so, does that not make this child born of a virgin before Ahaz a second Savior?

Answer: No on both counts:  There is no deity and no second savior.

1)      No where in the Bible or in any mainline Bible Help (dictionaries, commentaries, etc.) do I find any reference to a second savior.

2)      There is no reference in the Bible to a third God in the Godhead (Family).  There is God, the Father and Jesus Christ, but no mention of any other being.  If such a being existed, would not the Bible be very clear (as with Jesus) that he existed?

3)      Jesus Christ is the focus of the New Testament.  His life is covered in detail.  All of Paul’s letters and the Book of Revelation mention His name frequently.  There is no such mention of the supposed second savior on this scale.  A second savior is never mentioned at all.

4)      Jesus Christ had to die after a sinless human life to qualify as our savior.  There is no such account of a second being doing this.  It takes more than a virgin birth to qualify as a savior (assuming one could prove a virgin birth).

5)      There is nothing in Isaiah to describe an actual virgin birth such as Jesus experienced.  All that IS mentioned is a virgin (young woman) who later gave birth to a baby.

6)      There are many verses which point to the fact that we must love and worship Jesus and God, the Father but none for any other being.

7)      When I asked you to provide sources for your belief you offered none.  You only gave me your interpretation of what you thought the scriptures were saying.  This confirms to me that you have no such sources to support this belief.

8)      If there were, in fact, two saviors, how would you see the Salvation process being carried out?  Would half the population worship one or report to the one or would they worship both?  What would be the logical purpose for having two saviors?  If there is a logical and provable basis for having two then why not three or four or ten or a hundred?

9)      If the Bible is to be believed then why is Matthew referring to Isaiah 7 as referring to Jesus Christ?  If this is a lie, then the whole Bible cannot be believed.

THERE IS STILL MORE

The following is commentary from my Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible by Baker Book House for Isaiah 7:14:

Since Matthew first applied this verse to the virginal conception of Jesus (Matthew 1:23), it has been one of the key passages in the Christian collection of Old Testament prophecies of Jesus.  So effective were the early Christians in using this verse, and a few others from the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament originally done by Jews in Egypt), that the Jews found it necessary to modify the translation and even produce another Greek Old Testament.  Matthew applied it to Jesus on the basis of an interpretive principle which saw equally God-given deeper meanings for Old Testament passages.  In the context of the eighth century B.C., Isaiah was offering Judah’s king, Ahaz, a sign of encouragement and perhaps even of punishment, should he not act on faith.  Ahaz was concerned with pressure being put on him by Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel, so he wanted to appeal for help from Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (2 Kings 16:5-7).  Isaiah directed Ahaz to trust in the Lord, not in a foreign king, and offered him a sign of God’s help.  A woman was to conceive and bear a son, whom she would name Immanuel, which means “God with us.”  While the child was still young, the crisis would end.  Whether or not the woman was a virgin when she conceived has nothing to do with the sign to Ahaz.  The sign was in the meaning of the boy’s name and in how soon the problem would be over, as indicated by his young age.  Ahaz did not heed Isaiah’s words and appealed to the Assyrian king, plundering the temple and his own treasury to pay for his help (2 Kings 6:7-8).  Tiglath-pileser defeated Damascus and killed Rezin (2 Kings 16:9).  In 732 B.C. he captured and exiled northern Israel, and Pekah was assassinated (2 Kings 15:29-30).  God had already determined to solve Ahaz’ problem, but Ahaz foolishly took matters into his own hands and paid dearly for it.  Since Matthew’s use of this passage was based on the Greek Old Testament, not the Hebrew, and since he was deriving a deeper meaning than the one at the historical level which applied to Isaiah’s day, whether the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 should be translated “young woman” or “virgin” has no real bearing on the issue of Jesus’ virgin birth.  Matthew settled the question by choosing to follow a translation which made His virgin birth explicit. 

Note:  It is clear that Isaiah 7 has to do with the birth of Christ.  From this commentary it is also clear that the birth Ahaz sees as a sign has nothing to do with virgin birth (Mary type) or whether the woman who has the baby is a virgin or young woman though we have addressed those issues in this document.