Answer:

When missionaries are confronted with the glaring problem that the context of Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's claim that Isaiah is referring to Jesus' virgin birth, they often argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a dual prophecy.  In order to fully understand what missionaries mean by a dual prophecy, let me first explain why the context of Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's use of this verse as a proof-text of his virgin-birth story.

It should be said at the outset that the word "virgin" does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah.  The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha'almah as "a virgin."  This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "a virgin."  It means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity.  Most modern Christian Bibles1 have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as "the young woman."  Let's now examine the context of Isaiah 7:14. 

The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah.  In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria.  These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem.  The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear.  Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand -- the Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem.  In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read, 

It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah's declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later.  If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later?  Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried.  Such a sign would make no sense.

Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity ("he knows to reject bad and choose good"), the two
warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed.  We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these
two kings were suddenly assassinated.  With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth.  Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.

This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in.  Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem
of Matthew's complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah's words to Ahaz had two different applications.  They concede that the first application of Isaiah's prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis.  That child that was born contemporaneously and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.

Missionaries insist, however, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus' virgin birth less than 2,000 years ago.
With this elaborate explanation, missionaries maintain that Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate.  In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled twice: once in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E.  Problem solved.  Or is it? 

The troubles created by this explanation are manifold.  To begin with, the proposal of dual prophecy is entirely contrived and has no basis in the Bible.  Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of a second fulfillment.2  The notion of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem. 

Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the word ha'almah means a "virgin," and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive in Ahaz's time?  Were there two virgin births?  That is to say, if these Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who then was the first virgin having a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.?  Bear in mind that these missionaries insist that the word ha'almah can only mean virgin.  Are they claiming that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive and give birth to a child?

Furthermore, if they claim the seventh chapter of Isaiah is a dual prophecy, how does Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad?  Remember, Isaiah 7:14-16 reads,

If Isaiah's words are the substance of a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature?  Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned?  Who dreaded the Kingdom of Israel during the first century when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the seventh century B.C.E.?  When did Jesus eat cream and honey?  Does any of this make any sense?  It doesn't because this argument of a dual prophecy was born out of the desperation of Christian missionaries and essentially makes a mockery out of the Book of Isaiah.

Best wishes for a happy Chanukah.

Very truly yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Footnotes:

Click on the footnotes to return to the article

1Most modern Christian translators have corrected Matthew's mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 and correctly translate the Hebrew
word "almah" as a "young woman."  (see below)

    Christian Translations of Isaiah 7:14

2I once heard a missionary try to explain away the problem of the unbiblical nature of a dual prophecy by claiming that in the seventh chapter of Isaiah, the prophet addressed himself to King Ahaz in both the singular "you" and the plural "you."  (Although in the English language no such distinction exists, in the Hebrew language "you" can be expressed in both the singular and the plural.)  He went on to explain that at times the prophet addressed Ahaz alone, and in other places in this chapter, the prophet addressed the House of David.  He concluded, therefore, that whenever the prophet addressed the House of David or spoke in the plural "you," he was addressing the future virgin birth of Jesus seven centuries later.  On the other hand, whenever the prophet addressed Ahaz or spoke in the singular "you," he was addressing the immediate crisis regarding Ahaz and the two kingdoms who were poised to defeat him.  In Isaiah 7:14, he argued, the Hebrew word "la'chem" is a plural "you" and it therefore was addressing the future virgin birth of Jesus which was associated with the House of David, not Ahaz and his immediate military crisis.

I replied to him that this chapter quite clearly declares that it was both the House of David and Ahaz who were threatened by the immediate crisis, not just Ahaz alone.  Every reference to the House of David and plural "you" which was addressed to the entire Davidic House referred only to the military crisis described in this chapter.  In fact, in the second verse in this chapter, Isaiah relates that both Ahaz and the House of David were informed of the immediate crisis of the two warring kingdoms.  This verse, therefore, goes on to say, that both his heart (Ahaz -- singular) and the heart of the people (the House of David -- plural) trembled with fear.  It was not Ahaz alone who was terrified of these two hostile armies, but the entire House of David as well.

The reason that the prophet saw fit to repeatedly address Ahaz as the House of David and in the plural "you" throughout this chapter was because Ahaz was a wicked king and as such was personally undeserving of God's merciful intervention.  Nevertheless, the Almighty did save Ahaz through the merit of the House of David. 

The reason these two kingdoms laid siege to Jerusalem was to undermine the throne of David (verse six).  In II Samuel 7:12-16 the Almighty had promised King David that the House of David -- his dynasty -- would be preserved regardless of the worthiness of the king.  Ahaz was rescued by God in the merit of the House of David not through his own worthiness.  The prophet delivers this message by addressing Ahaz both as the House of David and in the plural "you."