A Second Fulfillment of the Same Prophesy is an Unbiblical Impossibility
Within Isaiah 7, verse 14 lies a miraculous story filled with drama, pathos, humor, intelligence, or lack of it, fantasy, fact and plain stupidity. It is not less than the sign of the entire Christian delusion, ignorance and speculative thought about that what they have never experienced. Christians have an unsatisfied wish to meet “God” and they have no reason to conceal their wish. But every single interpretation they make of the Bible’s text is the fulfillment of a fantasy, a product of imaginative activity, which they bring to the Bible from the unsatisfying reality of not being the “Chosen People” so that they may find a place in God’s Kingdom.
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.
“Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned."
These 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. This prophecy was fulfilled in 2 Kings 15 – 16, when these two kings were suddenly assassinated.
When Christian fundamentalists are confronted with the problem of seeing Isaiah 7:14 outside context, they often argue that Isaiah's words to Ahaz had two different applications. There really is a dual prophesy and the first application must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. A child was born contemporaneously and the first leg of Isaiah’s vision was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.
The second leg applied to Jesus' virgin birth. In short, Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled twice: once in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. The troubles created by this explanation are manifold. To begin with, the proposal of dual prophecy, as Rabbi Tovia Singer said, is “entirely contrived and has no basis in the Bible.” Indeed, nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of a second fulfillment. The notion of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem.”
Ponder These for a While
If the word ha'almah means a "virgin," and Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive in Ahaz's time?
If 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.?
Was Mary not the first and only virgin to conceive and give birth to a child?
If 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, “Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign, "Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
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?
When specific literary contexts are abandoned as a control, then almost any interpretation can be legitimated. The funny thing is that Isaiah really prophesized the coming of the Messiah, who Matthew is personifying in Jesus. But not in Chapter 7, v. 14.