by Within Isaiah 7:1 – 9:7, the historical context of the Immanuel sign is during the Syro-Ephraimitic conflict between 735-732 BCE, involving Syria, Ephraim (also known as Israel), and Assyria.[1] The political situation was tense in Jerusalem as the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III was engaged in campaigns in the northern frontier, and an Assyrian invasion seemed imminent. During this time, Rezin, king of Aram (with Damascus as its capital), and Pekah, king of Ephraim, formed an alliance to resist the probable Assyrian invasion. They sought Judah’s support, but King Ahaz refused to join them. It is possible that he may have already pursued, or was considering pursuing, Assyrian assistance to protect himself from these two kings (2 Kings 16:6–9).[2] The two kings, Rezin and Pekah, attempted to dethrone King Ahaz so they could replace him with an anti-Assyrian representative on the throne, who would then join in the coalition against King Tiglath-pileser III.[3] This attempt failed and prompted King Ahaz to seek help from Tiglath-pileser II, swearing allegiance and offering gifts from the temple and palace treasuries.
During these events, the prophet Isaiah, and his young son, Shear-jashub (“a remnant will return”), went out to meet King Ahaz and attempted to persuade him to trust God to deliver him. Kelly explains, “The prophet’s advice was a good religion and good politics. It was good religion because the appropriate response to the crisis was faith, not feverish activity and anxiety over the defenses of Jerusalem. It was good politics because it was based upon a sound appraisal of the political situation.”[4] Isaiah knew that King Rezin and King Pekah were weak and that they were all smoke and no fire (Isaiah 7:4). He also informed him that there would be dire consequences and that he should not seek aid from the Assyrians. Isaiah offered a sign from God to increase his confidence, but King Ahaz refused and cited scriptural precedent, but it also may be that Ahaz had already decided to call on Assyria for help.[5] This political move had significant religious consequences, as King Ahaz later introduced pagan practices into Judah’s worship.[6]
God did provide a sign, the birth of a child named Immanuel (“God is with us”). The Immanuel sign was a message of reassurance, predicting the birth of a child as a sign that the threats from Syria and Israel were temporary and the greater threat was from Assyria. The passage contains prophecies about future hope and judgement, including references to a revitalized Davidic throne and condemnation of Israel’s leaders.[7]
Isaiah’s son, Shear-jashub (“a remnant will return”), was meant to provide hope and that God’s covenant promises will not fail. The Immanuel (“God with us”) child, mentioned in Isaiah 7:10-17, is presented as a sign from God, symbolizing divine presence with His people, even in times of crisis. The interpretation is “messianic” in that the continuation of the dynasty preserves the channel for the promised blessings and leaves open the possibility of a future person in whom these blessings will be realized in a distinctive way.[8] Another one of Isaiah’s son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (“speedy spoil, hasty plunder”), serves as a prophetic declaration of Assyria’s swift conquest of Syria and Ephraim as it conveys imminent judgment upon Judah’s enemies, highlighting God’s control over historical events. It is also a warning to Judah, as the use of Assyria as an instrument of judgment foreshadows potential consequences for their own unfaithfulness.
“a sign”, is a key term here, rare in the Bible, this was the same word used with Solomon, they both had the proverbial genie in the bottle wish, who else had such a thing? Isaiah promised Ahaz directly that he would have a sign – “the LORD himself will give you a sign,” so does it not have some immediate fulfillment as well? In the NT, the Greek word for virgin (Hebrew ʿalmâ) is parthenaos, which is used for Athena.
The theological message of the Immanuel sign is about God’s presence, protection, and a promise of deliverance as it reassures Judah that God remains with His people regardless of their challenges and choices of unfaithfulness. Chisholm Jr. states, “Immanuel was a guarantee of the nation’s future greatness in fulfillment of God’s covenantal promises. Eventually, God would deliver his people from the hostile nations through another child, an ideal Davidic ruler who would embody God’s presence in a special way.”[9] Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic ideal prophesied by Isaiah. Matthew explained Isaiah’s ancient prophecy of Immanuel’s birth to Jesus (Matt. 1:22-23). There are two different Immanuel’s described in Isaiah. The first Immanuel served as a reminder of God’s presence with His people and a promise of a greater child to come who would reveal God’s presence in an even more profound way. The second Immanuel represents “God with us” in its greatest and infinitely superior form.[10] This second Immanuel, Jesus Christ, is the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise to be present with His people as He provides an eternal message offering comfort and assurance to Christians when going through trials and tribulations.[11]
Other parts of Isaiah 9 points to Christ, noting Galilee “will see a great light” (Isaiah 9:2). Who else but Jesus lived in Galilee (God was actually with them personally), but they preferred “darkness,” Nazareth wanted to kill Jesus.
Bibliography
Allen, Clifton J., ed. Proverbs–Isaiah. Broadman Bible Commentary. Brentwood, TN: Broadman Press, 1971.
Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.
Clendenen, E. Ray, and Jeremy Royal Howard, eds. Holman Illustrated Bible Commentary. Brentwood, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2015.
Fee, Gordon D., and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., eds. The Eerdmans Companion to the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011.
Freedman, David Noel, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf, John David Pleins, and Astrid B. Beck, eds. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992.
John E. Hartley, John E. “The Use of Typology Illustrated in a Study of Isaiah 9:1–7,” In Wesleyan Theological Perspectives (5 Volumes). Anderson, IN: Warner Press, Inc, 1981–1986.
Matthews, Victor Harold, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Youngblood, Ronald F., F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, Thomas Nelson Publishers, eds. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1995.
[1] Page H. Kelley, “Isaiah,” in Proverbs–Isaiah, Broadman Bible Commentary (Brentwood, TN: Broadman Press, 1971), 212.
[2] Tremper Longman III, “Isaiah,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Commentary (Brentwood, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2015), 716.
[3] Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Is 7:1.
[4] Kelley, “Isaiah,” 213–214.
[5] Longman III, “Isaiah,” 716.
[6] John E. Hartley, “The Use of Typology Illustrated in a Study of Isaiah 9:1–7,” in Wesleyan Theological Perspectives (5 Volumes), (Anderson, IN: Warner Press, Inc, 1981–1986), 206.
[7] Gordon D. Fee and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., eds., The Eerdmans Companion to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 387.
[8] Joseph Jensen, “Immanuel (Person),” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992), 393.
[9] Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 33–34.
[10] Ibid., 34.
[11] Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, Thomas Nelson Publishers, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1995).