Isaiah 7-8: Who is Immanuel?

Introduction

Who is Immanuel? It is not sufficient to interpret the Immanuel prophecy as messianic; it is clearly that, but it also has contemporary application. Does it refer to Hezekiah? H. A. Whittaker says in his commentary on Isaiah that he is Hezekiah;[1] C. C. Walker in his joint commentary with R. Roberts says of the sign of Immanuel, “Hezekiah, though a worthy king, and a pleasant contrast with idolatrous Ahaz, was no such sign to the house of David”.[2] Who is right?

Hezekiah

The strongest argument in favour of a Hezekiah identification is the fact that the prophecy about Immanuel is a birth prophecy and the Servant (taken to be Hezekiah) affirms “The Lord has called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother has he made mention of my name” (Isa 49:1, cf. v. 5). Another critical argument is that Judah is described as Immanuel’s land (Isa 8:8), indicating that he is of the royal house. If we include Isa 9:6 and 11:1 as Immanuel prophecies, he is to sit upon the throne of David (Isa 9:6-7), again indicating he is a son of Ahaz; and he is to come out of the “stem of Jesse” (Isa 11:1).

The major problem with this identification is chronology. There are two aspects to the chronological difficulty. The first, acknowledged by Whittaker, is the age of Ahaz upon the birth of Hezekiah. Ahaz was 20 when he began to reign and he reigned for 16 years; Hezekiah was 25 when he began to reign (2 Kgs 16:2; 18:2). This would make Hezekiah 9 years old at the time of Isaiah 7 if that prophecy was delivered in the first year of Ahaz’ reign-count. Whittaker’s solution to the problem is to say that the MT is corrupt in giving Hezekiah’s age at accession as 25; he suggests that the Hebrew would require only a small emendation to become 15.

Since there are signs that in the ancient copies numerals were not written in full but were indicated by letters used with numerical value, it would need only the smallest distortion in the text to make Hezekiah 15 at his accession (and not 25).[3]

In saying this, he seems to be assuming that the original Kings’ regnal notice used numerals (i.e. two Hebrew letters) and therefore it would be a small change to write ‘2’ for a ‘1’ with a ‘5’.[4] There is no evidence for the supposition that the original Kings’ regnal notices used numerals and in the MT they have a variety of verb forms along with number-words as well as an idiom. If we suppose that the original had numerals then we do not have any inspired text in the regnal notices since they use words and idioms. We should rather take the current form of the regnal notices to be inspired, even if there have been errors of transmission since the record was written.

The Hebrew for “twenty-five” is vmxw ~yrf[ !b (“son of twenty and five”) and the Hebrew for “fifteen” would be  hrf[w vmx !b (“son of five ten”, cf. 2 Kgs 20:6 for “fifteen” and 2 Kgs 16:2 for Uzziah’s age on accession which was sixteen).[5] Any error in transmission here would involve two factors: first, a change to the word order (the tens denominator switches position); and secondly, a plural ending (~y) instead of a singular ending (h). This is quite an involved “error” and textual critics would need to explain how it occurred for it to have any cogency.

The first difficulty assumes a simple reading of the internal chronology of the Kings’ record. However, the Hebrew for Ahaz’ accession notice is different from other such notices and similar instead to that of Joash who was 7 “on becoming king” (wklmb vawhy). Similarly, Ahaz was 20 “on becoming king” (wklmb zxa), and like Joash who did not exercise his kingship from the age of 7, we should infer that Ahaz’ age relates to the moment when he became co-regent with his father[6] rather than sole monarch. The length of co-regency that Ahaz shared with his father can be estimated to be as much as 12 years based on the synchronisms with Israel’s kings (2 Kgs 15:30; 16:1-2; 17:1). This would make Ahaz 23 or thereabouts when Hezekiah was born.

While this removes the first difficulty, the second difficulty is more severe as it can only be circumvented by rejecting Assyrian records and chronology. The second chronological difficulty is the absolute date assigned to the prophecy. This is determined by Assyrian chronology which assigns the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis to 735/734 (and perhaps a little earlier). Tiglath-Pileser, to whom Ahaz appeals for help, is in the Levant from 735 onwards and his sack of Damascus and his deposition of Pekah is assigned to 732/731. With Hezekiah born in 740 (Ascending the throne in 715, twenty-five years later), the Immanuel prophecy cannot refer him when it is delivered in 735/734.[7]

Immanuel as Maher-shalal-hash-baz

The prophecy of Isa 7:14 is very specific, “the virgin[8] shall conceive (hrh)”—the woman is at court. The sign to Ahaz and the house of David is not the birth itself but the overthrow of Pekah and Rezin before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. The young woman would call his name “Immanuel” but this name does not exclude other names being given to the child. The initial fulfillment of the prophecy is in Isaiah’s son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Support for this interpretation consists of,

  • The next part of the narrative recounts the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. The structure of the story corresponds to the Immanuel prophecy.
    • Isaiah goes into “the prophetess” and she conceives (hrh, Isa 8:3); the verb is related to the adjective in Isa 7:14 (hrh).
    • The son is named in connection with a prophecy that uses the same construction, “For before the lad knows…”

r[nh [dy ~rjb yk (Isa 7:16)
r[nh [dy ~rjb yk (Isa 8:4)

    • The prophecy in both cases is about the first knowledge gained by a young child – Immanuel will know how to refuse the evil and choose the good, and Maher-shalal-hash-baz will know how to call for his mother and father.
    • Isaiah is instructed to write in a great roll (Isa 8:1); prophetic signs given to the king would typically be written in the Near East. The subject of what is written is Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa 8:1), but as yet he has not been introduced in the narrative; this implies he was retrospectively known to be a fulfillment of the Immanuel prophecy.
    • Isaiah speaks to Immanuel who was present at court (Isa 8:8). This occurs after Maher-shalal-hash-baz is born. As a “sign” Isaiah would have taken him to court (cf. Isa 7:3).
    • Isaiah states that the children given to him were for “signs” just as Immanuel was said to be a “sign” (Isa 8:18).
    • Isaiah deconstructs Immanuel’s name into “God is with us” in reference to him and his disciples (Isa 8:10, 16).

For these reasons, commentators often regard the Immanuel prophecy to be fulfilled in the person of one of Isaiah’s sons; certainly, within a few years of the prophecy and the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Rezin and Pekah were vanquished. On the other hand, if the Immanuel prophecy is about the birth of Hezekiah, there is no corresponding narrative fulfillment. (Commentators also offer an unknown son of Ahaz as the fulfilment.)

The first objection to this interpretation is that Judah is called Immanuel’s land. However, this cannot be regarded as conclusive since Immanuel was a Judahite and Judah was his land. There is no necessary implication that Immanuel must be the heir to the throne in this remark.

The second objection to the view that Maher-shalal-hash-baz is a fulfillment of the Immanuel prophecy is the anticipation of Isa 9:6-7 which is clearly about monarchy and succession and therefore not about the son of a prophet. The Hebrew verbs used are past tense (which the LXX renders as Aorist passives):

For unto us a child has been born, unto us a son has been given… (Isa 9:6; KJV revised)[9]

This could refer to the recent birth of Immanuel, who would then not be Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Equally, however, it could express confidence in the young Hezekiah as the son who has been given and upon whom the hopes of the faithful are now focused.

The third objection is the prophecy of Isa 11:1 which predicts that there will be a rod and a branch out of the family of Jesse and this can only be the heir to the throne of David. If this prophecy is about the same individual as in the Immanuel prophecy then it is clearly not fulfilled in Maher-shalal-hash-baz. However, this identification is not necessary: we have had the birth prophecy of Immanuel in Isaiah 7; we have had an expression of anticipation about a child in Isaiah 9; so this third prophecy about a rod, a branch and a root (Isa 11:10) could very well refer to a future individual rather than the “births” that have already taken place.

Wonderful Counsellor

The notice and anticipation in Isa 9:6-7 comes from the accession of Hezekiah to the throne in 729-728 when he was 12.[10] The language of birth was used to describe the giving of the new king to the people by Yahweh and to define the relationship of the king to God. This is clear from the enthronement psalm,

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ps 2:6-7 (KJV)

The “son” given by Yahweh in the person of the new king is a “boy” (dly) and he is given various throne-names that express the hopes of the people. The relationship of sonship comes through again in Psalm 89,

Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. Ps 89:27 (KJV)

Given this tradition, it is better to see Isa 9:6-7 in relation to Hezekiah’s accession rather than the birth of Immanuel.

The Rod of Jesse

Hezekiah is the Servant, as we have claimed in our “Introduction” above, but he is not the fulfillment of the Immanuel prophecy; in Isa 9:6-7 we have an accession oracle relating to Hezekiah sent round the cities and villages of Israel and Judah, so what are we to make of Isaiah 11?

  • The prophecy that a “shoot” shall come from the “stump” of Jesse (Isa 11:1, RSV) is unusual language for the immediate royal family; it is more fitting for a branch (sic) of the royal family.
  • The “root” of Jesse (Isa 11:10) would be an “ensign/standard” (sn) of the people. This “standard” is referred to again in Isa 49:22 and 62:10 with regard to the Arm of the Lord. The corresponding verb (ssn) is used in the oracle of Isa 59:16-21 in relation to Anonymous Conqueror, “the Spirit of the Lord shall raise up a standard (ssn) against him” (KJV).[11]
  • A branch (rcn) shall grow out of the roots of the stump (Isa 11:1). The word is rare (4x) and used in Isa 14:19 and 60:21. Isaiah quotes this prophecy when he says to the conqueror, “Then all your people will be righteous; they will possess the land forever, the branch (rcn) of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified” (Isa 60:21, RSV).
  • The Spirit of the Lord would rest upon the Rod of Jesse (Isa 11:2); this is picked up by the Conqueror in Isaiah 61, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me” (v. 1) and Isaiah 59 (v. 21), “My Spirit that is upon you”.

For these reasons we propose that the Rod of Jesse is the Anonymous Conqueror and not Hezekiah. This does not mean that all the terms of the prophecy were fulfilled, because they have their true fulfillment in Christ. In particular, if we read the lament-psalm of Isa 63:7-64:12 as spoken by the Conqueror, he explicitly says that Israel did not acknowledge him (Isa 63:16) and so aspects of Isaiah 11 did not come to fulfillment through him.

Conclusion

The question of the number of individual character figures in the book of Isaiah is important. Each character is a type of Christ, and for this reason, the hopes in the oracles associated with each character do not have a complete fulfillment in those individuals. We identify three individuals: Immanuel, one of Isaiah’s children; Hezekiah, the Servant of the Lord; and the Rod of Jesse, the Anonymous Conqueror.

[1] H. A. Whittaker, Isaiah (Cannock: Biblia, 1988), 148.

[2] C. C. Walker and R. Roberts, The Ministry of the Prophets: Isaiah (2nd ed.; Birmingham: Published by C. C. Walker, 1923), 100.

[3] Whittaker, Isaiah, 149.

[4] [Ed: JWA]: What epigraphic evidence is there for this? Using Hebrew alphabetic letters for numerals would be unusual in contemporary or pre-exilic paleo-Hebrew inscriptions. From inscriptions of the time hieratic (Egyptian) numerical symbols were much employed, not just on weights and measures, but also in lists or messages among Hebrew words in texts. However, a troop list might be headed with the Hebrew number-word ‘ten’ and not a number-sign; or a stretch of text might include the hieratic ‘10’ sign followed by the Hebrew ´lPym ‘thousands’ to represent ’10,000’. So, neither these various everyday applications, nor even the use of contemporary hieratic number signs, can be assumed to apply to the Bible’s different purposes or genre in the pre-exilic era.

[5] Amaziah, Jotham, Hezekiah, Jehoiakim are all said to be twenty-five on accession and there may be an age-related explanation for this pattern.

[6] Co-regency is also indicated by Isaiah’s language in Isaiah 7: he refers to Ahaz’ father separately from Ahaz, “The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria” (v. 17).

[7] For general histories see J. Bright, A History of Israel (OTL; Revised Edition; London: SCM Press, 1972) and J. Maxwell Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (London: SCM Press, 1986).

[8] The Hebrew can mean “young woman” or “virgin”. Following NT interpretation, and reading ‘virgin’, a Maher-shalal-hash-baz fulfilment requires that Isaiah is taking a new wife in “the prophetess” (perhaps his first wife died in childbirth). This is indicated by the form of the verb Isaiah uses (Isa 8:3 “went unto”), which occurs once elsewhere in the Law relating to taking a wife and entering her chamber (Deut 22:13-14).

[9] [Ed: JWA]: The Hebrew verbs are past passive forms: “For a child was born to us, a son was given to us…” (cf., KJV Ps 87:4, 5, 6. In these verses for the same Hebrew passive ‘was born’ LXX, as in Isa 9:6, is consistent with Greek passive forms of gi,nomai. LXX Ps 86:4, 5, 6).

[10] O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12 (2nd ed.; London: SCM Press, 1983), 210-217; R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1-39 (NCB; London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1980), 107-109.

[11] The RSV and NASB have “for he will come like a rushing stream, which the wind of the Lord drives” but we would argue that the KJV is correct.