Bible critics have questioned, explained away, and apologized for the Immanuel prophecy. Many even argue that this is not a messianic prophecy. They claim that it relates to an event at the time of Isaiah: a young woman (these scholars reject the translation “virgin”) was to give birth to a child, and while the child was still young the kings of Syria and Ephraim would be taken away. They suggest further that Matthew was overzealous in using Old Testament prophecies to convince the Jews of the Messiah, and should not have used this passage. Others argue that this is a dual prophecy; there was a young woman in Isaiah’s day who was to give birth to a child, but the passage was also applicable to the birth of the Son of God. There are still others who have carefully defended the prophecy as a messianic one.
As Latter-day Saints, we have other sources besides the work of the scholars. Nephi also quoted Isaiah. This parallels Matthew’s use of Old Testament prophecies. However, not only is this passage quoted in the Book of Mormon, but we also have the record of Nephi’s vision of “a virgin most beautiful and fair” who “was carried away in the Spirit” and who was returned “bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto [Nephi]: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father” (1 Nephi 11:13, 19–21). We also have the prophecy of Alma that “he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin … and bring forth a son, even the Son of God” (Alma 7:10). In spite of the advantage of modern revelation, however, we still need to understand and explain the famous Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah.
Only one verse of the prophecy is usually cited—verse 14—and it is usually cited out of context. When this prophecy is quoted in context and in its entirety it is easily interpreted as Messianic. Ahaz had refused to listen to Isaiah, and had refused a sign from the Lord. Therefore, the prophecy uttered by Isaiah was directed, not only to Ahaz, but to all the house of David. It is immaterial if others were present at the time.
Ahaz, as the king of Judah, had rejected the prophecy, and in so doing had “wearied” Isaiah, a man. He also had wearied God (v. 13), who had promised David that “thy kingdom shall be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:16). The King of kings was to come through Judah and David’s lineage (see Genesis 49:10), so any appointed king who would believe and live righteously would be supported and sustained by the Lord himself.
The second prophecy uttered by Isaiah in this chapter, then, is both a reminder of this promise to Judah and David and a declaration of how the Lord would bring about its fulfillment in spite of a wicked king or a wicked generation. The Lord would bring this about through the miraculous conception of a God (Immanuel means “God with us”) and the birth of that God unto a virgin. The coming of Christ was a well-known prophecy. All of the ancient prophets (in both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon) knew and foretold of Christ’s coming. Jacob, son of Lehi, testified “that none of the prophets have written, nor prophesied, save they have spoken concerning this Christ” (Jacob 7:11). Meeting in Jerusalem with the eleven apostles after his resurrection, Jesus taught them from the scriptures:
These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. [Luke 24:44]
The law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Writings) were the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). It is possible that Isaiah was quoting a prophecy that had already been given. The point was, that even though Ahaz rejected the counsel and advice of Jehovah given through his prophet, and even if Ahaz led his people into captivity, the Lord Immanuel would still come as had been prophesied.
Isaiah then gives a further prophecy that may be considered a continuation of the second one. “For behold the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings” (v. 16). While this has been the problem verse to many critics in relating the Immanuel prophecy to the life of Christ, the problem is resolved in the context of the historical situation. Isaiah had given a prophecy to all of Judah concerning the house of David. He now comes back to the situation at hand, the problem of Syria and Ephraim. Most critics have assumed that the child spoken of in verse 16 is the same child spoken of in verses 14 and 15. Could not the child in verse 16 be another child? Why was Isaiah told to take Shearjashub with him? Could the child not be Isaiah’s son who was with him? A child is accountable “when eight years old” in the eyes of the Lord (D&C 68:25). In his first eight years he is to learn to distinguish between good and evil. Therefore, Isaiah could have been prophesying that the kings of Syria and Ephraim were both going to be forsaken of their kings in less than eight years. This would be before Shearjashub was eight years old which would make it less than eight years. This prophecy was also fulfilled: Pekah was killed by the conspiracy of Hoshea about three years after Ahaz was appointed king (see 2 Kings 15:30). The king of Assyria “slew Rezin,” king of Syria, in response to Ahaz’s plea for help as they went up and took Damascus (2 Kings 16:9). Thus within three years both of the kings Ahaz feared were removed, and the third prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled. The age of Shearjashub is not given but considering that Isaiah’s c hildren were given him “for sign and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of Hosts” (Isaiah 8:18). It is feasible that his son’s age fits this theory.