Isaiah 7:14 (ESV) "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
In Isaiah chapter 7, my understanding is that the nation of Israel was split in two (northern/southern), and that they were warring (Israel sided with Syria against Judah) [vs 1]. When the Israel and Syria came up to Jerusalem to war against Judah, king Ahaz of Judah was terrified [vs 2]. Isaiah and his son went to the king per God's direction [vs 3] and told the king not to fear because God said that Israel and Syria's plans would not come to pass because God would destroy the northern tribes within 65 years...and that king Ahaz should therefore be strong in faith [vs 4-9].
When God asked Ahaz to ask for a sign that what God has said would happened, Ahaz said he would not put God to the test [vs 10-12]. God then graciously says that he will still give Ahaz a sign: a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name will be called Immanuel [vs 13-14]. Before the child would be old enough to know to refuse evil and do good (ie, a young age), the land of the two kings threatening Ahaz would be deserted [vs 15-17].
------------------
I have some questions about this passage in its context and as it refers to Jesus as the Messiah (in terms of the fulfillment of prophecy). In the ESV Study Bible notes on this passage, it says there are (at least) the views of SINGLE fulfillment ("the sign points originally and solely to the birth of Jesus as the ultimate Messiah") and DOUBLE fulfillment ("both an immediate fulfillment in Isaiah's day and a long-term fulfillment in the birth of the Messiah").
What do people on this board think in terms of this being a single fulfillment passage referring only to Jesus OR that it is a double fulfillment passage applying to both Isaiah's day and to the coming Messiah? The reason I ask is because I have questions about both of these interpretive ideas.
If the passage is a SINGLE fulfillment only about Jesus: (1) how would this sign of a coming Messiah (who'd come 700 years later) comfort Ahaz when he was terrified of approaching armies right then? (2) I think we'd all agree it is impossible that this could be a single-fulfillment passage, based on the context, because God is saying that the birth of this child will be a sign to Ahaz because before the child is very old, the lands of the threatening kings would be deserted. Jesus came 700 years after this prophecy...so he was born well after those lands had been deserted.
If the passage is a DOUBLE fulfillment pertaining to both Isaiah's day and to the coming Messiah: (1) are there two virgins who conceived in the Bible? One would've been a sign to Ahaz in his day (direct fulfillment), and the other was the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb (typological fulfillment). The reason I ask is because I've never heard this other virgin-conceiving-in-the-Bible mentioned before. (2) I also wonder, realistically, how king Ahaz would know this women was a virgin when she conceived, since this was supposed to be a clear sign to him from God so he'd not be afraid but strong in faith. Maybe this was a moral, chaste, God-fearing young woman he knew that wasn't married...so he'd expect the best of her, rather than assuming she was sleeping around (just like Joseph, after the angel came to him in a dream, knew the baby in Mary's womb was from God rather than thinking Mary was sleeping around).
Thoughts? Thank you!
In Isaiah chapter 7, my understanding is that the nation of Israel was split in two (northern/southern), and that they were warring (Israel sided with Syria against Judah) [vs 1]. When the Israel and Syria came up to Jerusalem to war against Judah, king Ahaz of Judah was terrified [vs 2]. Isaiah and his son went to the king per God's direction [vs 3] and told the king not to fear because God said that Israel and Syria's plans would not come to pass because God would destroy the northern tribes within 65 years...and that king Ahaz should therefore be strong in faith [vs 4-9].
When God asked Ahaz to ask for a sign that what God has said would happened, Ahaz said he would not put God to the test [vs 10-12]. God then graciously says that he will still give Ahaz a sign: a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name will be called Immanuel [vs 13-14]. Before the child would be old enough to know to refuse evil and do good (ie, a young age), the land of the two kings threatening Ahaz would be deserted [vs 15-17].
------------------
I have some questions about this passage in its context and as it refers to Jesus as the Messiah (in terms of the fulfillment of prophecy). In the ESV Study Bible notes on this passage, it says there are (at least) the views of SINGLE fulfillment ("the sign points originally and solely to the birth of Jesus as the ultimate Messiah") and DOUBLE fulfillment ("both an immediate fulfillment in Isaiah's day and a long-term fulfillment in the birth of the Messiah").
What do people on this board think in terms of this being a single fulfillment passage referring only to Jesus OR that it is a double fulfillment passage applying to both Isaiah's day and to the coming Messiah? The reason I ask is because I have questions about both of these interpretive ideas.
If the passage is a SINGLE fulfillment only about Jesus: (1) how would this sign of a coming Messiah (who'd come 700 years later) comfort Ahaz when he was terrified of approaching armies right then? (2) I think we'd all agree it is impossible that this could be a single-fulfillment passage, based on the context, because God is saying that the birth of this child will be a sign to Ahaz because before the child is very old, the lands of the threatening kings would be deserted. Jesus came 700 years after this prophecy...so he was born well after those lands had been deserted.
If the passage is a DOUBLE fulfillment pertaining to both Isaiah's day and to the coming Messiah: (1) are there two virgins who conceived in the Bible? One would've been a sign to Ahaz in his day (direct fulfillment), and the other was the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb (typological fulfillment). The reason I ask is because I've never heard this other virgin-conceiving-in-the-Bible mentioned before. (2) I also wonder, realistically, how king Ahaz would know this women was a virgin when she conceived, since this was supposed to be a clear sign to him from God so he'd not be afraid but strong in faith. Maybe this was a moral, chaste, God-fearing young woman he knew that wasn't married...so he'd expect the best of her, rather than assuming she was sleeping around (just like Joseph, after the angel came to him in a dream, knew the baby in Mary's womb was from God rather than thinking Mary was sleeping around).
Thoughts? Thank you!