If Isaiah 7:14-16 wasn't about Jesus, wouldn't it be a false prophecy since the two

[jamesc]

kings weren't destroyed? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [a] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. [c] 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

This prophecy wasn't fulfilled if it was about an upcoming child:

In Isaiah's day Judah was not under the dominion of a foreign nation. Syria had no dominion over Judah; Northern Israel had no dominion over them. These two neighboring nations unsuccessfully attempted to conquer Judah by means of a devastating war. Although Judah was sorely disabled, they managed to retain self governance with the temporary aid of Assyria. Assyria exercised some control over the minor nations through covenant relationship and the payment of assessments; but the Assyrians permitted the smaller nations to maintain self rule through their own kings, and to wage their own wars unless payment was made for outside help. Thus, deliverance did not come to Judah during the reign of Ahaz.

 

[TheDoctor]

But Mary didn't name Jesus "Immanuel", so it wasn't correctly fulfilled anyway.

 

[BMCR]

Re-post of my other answer:

One can ask a more basic question, if the prophecy WAS about Jesus then wouldn't it be a false prophecy since the two kings were not destroyed?

Also, as far as I'm aware, Christian interpretations of this verse either say that there is a "double prophecy" or that it merely "foreshadows" the birth of Jesus. If so, your question can be asked on the Christian interpretation as well as such an interpretation admits that something must have occurred in Isaiah's day.

For further explanations:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

 

[Chaya]

The two kings were Assyria, as Hatikva mentioned, and the king of Babylon who eventually took Judah away and was destroyed as well as the Assyrian king. In Orthodox Jewish Perspective. Isaiah 7:14 speaks about Isaiah's own son whose birth is mentioned in Isaiah 8:3. So, it did come to pass.

Daniel, one of the captives of the exile of Judah, the Southern Kingdom, speaks of the fall of these kingdoms, and the rise of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans in succession in response to the dreams of one of the Kings who fell.

Rabbi Singer explains Isaiah's children, one of which is Imanuel:

"The Prophet Isaiah, in his own words, tells the reader that his children were given as signs from G-d (Is 8:18), and that the name he gave to each of his three sons carried a prophetic message described by these signs and identified as historical events that occurred. The three sons have been identified: (shear yashuv; Is 7:3), (immanu'el; Is 7:14, 8:8), and (maher shalal hash baz; Is 8:3). Also identified were the respective specific events for which these names were prophetic signs, along with their respective fulfillments in Jewish history, as recorded in the Hebrew Bible.

This method of assigning names to children is not a unique occurrence in the Hebrew Bible. The Prophet Hosea, Isaiah’s contemporary, who ministered in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, was ordered by G-d to give the following names to his children: (yizreel; Hosea 1:4), G-d Will Sow, (lo ruhamah; Hosea 1:6), [She Was] Not Pitied, and (lo ammi; Hosea 1:9), [You Are] Not My People. Each of these names represented a specific sign that carried a prophetic message, as described in the first chapter in the Book of Hosea.

The passage Matthew 1:23 demonstrates, in several ways, that its author either did not have an understanding of the Hebrew language and of the Hebrew Bible, or that he deliberately perverted the words of the Prophet Isaiah to create a passage that would support his specific agenda. In addition to the mistranslation of the Hebrew noun (ha'almah), the young woman, and misrepresentation of the tense of the verb (harah), [she] is pregnant, which were discussed in another essay, of particular interest here is this author's explanation of the name (immanu'el) as meaning God with us, instead of the correct G-d is with us. The omission of the verb to be from its meaning enhances the Christological appeal and helps create the false allusion to Jesus."

 

[HatikvahJPA]

Isaiah foretold the exile that took place during his lifetime (619-533 B.C.E.), as the powerful Assyrian army under Sennacherib conquered the Northern Kingdom and scattered its people around the Assyrian kingdom, so that they would lose their Jewish identity. Then the seemingly invincible Assyrian ruler moved against Judah, but Isaiah prophesied that this time the army would be wiped out.

Rick G: Satan is not an evil god. He has NO power other than his assignment from God -- that of an adversary or as God's prosecuting attorney pointing out our misdeeds.
.

 

[Mark]

The King James Version mistranslates the Hebrew word "almah", which means "young woman" as "virgin". (The Hebrew word, "bethulah", means "virgin".) In addition, the young woman referred to in this verse was living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus -- and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament, so of course it isn't a "prophecy" any more than the wrong numbers in a lottery are 'winning numbers'.

Close only counts in horseshoes...

 

[CherwashereJPA]

Chaya found the details I was looking for. It's a very interesting commentary on what would happen to the two parts of Israel that did come to pass.

Hosea's wife's profession (prostitute) & children were named to indicate they would be separated & abandon Judaism. He was a prophet connected with the Northern Kingdom.

Issiah was primarily connected with Southern Kingdom, Judea, & his wife's profession (prophet) & children (including emmanual) were named to indicate they would stay faithful.

Therefore, the whole section, when read with more knowledge of context (Hosea as related & Hebrew meanings of the names), becomes totally different....and very intriguing. It also then has a classic feel for how Torah reads & feels in Judaism.

-----

I heard it on the "Paul misquotes" tape from this page, though the Issiah 53 tapes may be more on point:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/biblical.html

All I'd found was this comment, but Chaya found the full address to the question:
"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. "
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/virgin.html

 

[RickG]

Maybe these cross referenced scriptures might have the answer.

(2 Kings 15:29) In the days of Pe?kah the king of Israel, Tig?lath-pil·e?ser the king of As·syr?i·a came in and proceeded to take I?jon and A?bel-beth-ma?a·cah and Ja·no?ah and Ke?desh and Ha?zor and Gil?e·ad and Gal?i·lee, all the land of Naph?ta·li, and to carry them into exile in As·syr?i·a.

(2 Kings 16:9) At that the king of As·syr?i·a listened to him and the king of As·syr?i·a went up to Damascus and captured it and led its [people] into exile at Kir, and Re?zin he put to death.

(Isaiah 8:4) for before the boy will know how to call out, ‘My father!’ and ‘My mother!’ one will carry away the resources of Damascus and the spoil of Sa·mar?i·a before the king of As·syr?i·a.”

(Isaiah 17:1) The pronouncement against Damascus: “Look! Damascus removed from being a city, and she has become a heap, a decaying ruin.

Also go back to verse 1. What was their goal? Go to verses 5 and 6.
They intended to remove Ahaz and put in their own man, one not of the family of David.

Here is what they are planning: “Let us go up against Judah and tear it apart and by breakthroughs take it for ourselves; and let us make another king reign inside it, the son of Tabeel.” (Isaiah 7:5,*6) The Syro-Israelite league schemes to conquer Judah and replace Ahaz, a son of David, with their man. Clearly, the attack on Jerusalem is now more than a war between nations. It has become a struggle between Satan and Jehovah. Why? Because Jehovah God made a covenant with King David, thus assuring him that his sons would rule over Jehovah’s people. (2*Samuel 7:11, 16) What a triumph for Satan if he could install some other royal dynasty on the throne in Jerusalem! He might even frustrate Jehovah’s purpose for David’s line to produce a permanent heir, the “Prince of Peace.”—Isaiah 9:6,*7.

Will the scheme of Syria and Israel succeed? No. Jehovah declares: “It will not stand, neither will it take place.” (Isaiah 7:7) Through Isaiah, Jehovah says that not only will the siege of Jerusalem fail but “within just sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered to pieces so as not to be a people.” (Isaiah 7:8) Yes, within 65 years Israel will no longer exist as a people. This assurance, with its specific timetable, should give Ahaz courage. In the same way, God’s people today are strengthened by knowing that the time left for Satan’s world is running out.

The Bible does not reveal whose child Immanuel is. But since the young Immanuel is to serve as a sign and Isaiah later states that he and his children “are as signs,” Immanuel may be a son of the prophet. (Isaiah 8:18) Perhaps Jehovah leaves the identity of Immanuel in Ahaz’ day uncertain so as not to distract later generations from the Greater Immanuel.