The Temporal Horizon of the Immanuel Oracle

[Jason Hare]

Evidently the LXX translation has provided much in the way of interpreting this passage:

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον, ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ

All the verbs in this verse (bolded) are future tense. The underlined words translate הָרָה, having to use three Greek words just for the one Hebrew word (some manuscripts (Vaticanus) replace ἕξει "shall have" with λήμψεται "shall receive"; different word, but same tense). The translator in this case has understood the entire thing as a future occurrence, though whether this is immediately following the prophecy or for a later date we wouldn't be able to determine. Nevertheless, the LXX translation is likely what has affected later interpretations of this passage.

Saying that, the Dead Sea Scrolls sect was quiet adept at arguing older prophecies as applying to their own situation (see the Pesher/commentary on Habakkuk for instance), so having both a separate past and future prophetic "fulfilment" is within the bounds of theological thinking, regardless if one wants to support either an at-the-time fulfilment, or a future one as well.

There’s something to be said for the idea that even in rabbinic interpretation (of all texts, not just this one), the better interpretation in their view would be one that could pull a present application for a text that seems to be past in meaning. There is the feeling that if you think that a text has only to do with the past, then you don’t understand that text.

I’m beholden neither to the pəšārîm of the Dead Sea Scrolls nor to the interpretive summersaults of the Rabbis. I seek to understand a text from its context, how the author may have intended it, how the readers may have taken it immediately, what it may have meant in its historical context, etc. I care very little about future generations’ (mis)interpretations of the passage. That might just be me.

[S_Walch]

You and I agree very much on that, Jason. Understanding a text as per the original hearers/readers and the historical context is always numero uno. My point was this needn't be an imminent vs. future battle, as per what Ethan seemed to want to say ("I have trouble with the imminent interpretation" etc.). One can still put forth a future interpretation of a text without precluding the historical one in which it was originally set (that being the birth of Hezekiah).

It needn't be an either/or thing; it can be both.

[Jonathan Beck]

I haven't read the entire thread, nor do I intend to, but I'll offer my two cents, since I'm a Christian who specializes in the OT, though perhaps a more liberal one than you're used to.

I am inclined to agree with most of what Jason has said. But where I would differ from Jason is that I think it's a valid method of interpretation, at least for that time period, to interpret text in light of one's own cultural circumstances. It's a very Jewish thing to do this - they had been doing so for centuries.

Matthew and John were Jewish, so they were familiar with the idea that this verse, to them, refers to Hezekiah. But, they were also at liberty to play with the text and fit it to their own agendas. It's like they said, "Hey, this verse means this, but we can apply it to Jesus here." It's not saying that the verse was originally written to point to Jesus; rather, it was later adapted by the Gospel writers to point to Jesus. I see nothing wrong with this.

If you're a Christian, I think it's important to be aware of BOTH of the contexts - that originally for the Jews, the text refers to Hezekiah; and secondly, the Christian writers later adopted the text to fit their own cultural circumstances and pointed to Jesus.

Not sure if this makes any sense, but those are my two cents (see what I did there?).

Jonathan

[Ethan Bohr]

Thank you for writing everyone! It is nice to know that somebody, at least, is reading what I have written! And let me preface my reply by saying that, certainty usually eludes us when dealing with a text from so long ago. I should not wish to sound more dogmatic than I actually am, so I apologize if I did.

Also, I'm not here to worry about my "beliefs," so you have to don't either .

Jason writes,

The prologue of the book of Ruth has the line וְשֵׁם שְׁנֵי־בָנָיו מַחְלוֹן וְכִלְיוֹן “and the name of his two sons [was] Maḥlôn and Kilyôn” (Ruth 1:2). Claiming that the land must be one and the same land is the same as claiming here that the two sons of ʾĔlîméleḵ were the same person because the word “name” is singular. When I was in high school Spanish, we were told that in Spanish you say that se pusieron el sombrero “they put the hat on,” using the word sombrero in the singular even though we shouldn’t really imagine them all sharing a single hat! The same is happening in this verse. No one reading this text as written would really come away thinking that it’s talking about one single country. That’s hyperliteralism and a bad reading of the text.

On the good observation you have made I should make two points in reply. First, the point you raise is not the only argument I brought for my conclusion (which of course has been made by many others before me). When an argument is cumulative, as in this case, one element reinforces another. If the verse refers to Israel and Aram, then the force of the passage shifts unexpectedly from speaking negatively about Ahaz to being positive. As you may have seen from the earlier part of my remarks on this passage as a whole, Isaiah sought to encourage Ahaz in vv. 1–9 as well as 10–11, but Ahaz refused to follow his lead at which point (vv. 13–14) Isaiah was obliged to turn away to the negative (in line with the hardening saying in ch. 6). If v. 16 gives the substantiation for the Immanuel prophecy in v. 14 (as the initial kî suggests), then we expect a negative word about Judah here, as the first half of the verse taken on its own would supply (cf. 6.11). The text we now have turns this in an opposite direction.

Second, the Ruth 1.2 reference that you bring is a good example of the distributive singular. Actually, an even better example for you might be 2 Kings 25.28, as it refers to a throne. However, I should maintain that the construction in our verse is different since, although the reference to the land comes before the reference to the kings, the retrospective suffix on melakeyha comes after and so is less easily taken in the same way. Of course, there can always be exceptions to any linguistic rules, so that I cannot declare you are completely 'wrong', but it would be another anomaly to add to the others. I don't see you having a solid syntactic parallel here though.

Third, a dynastic application, both present and future, is indicated by Isaiah 7:9b's relationship with the Dynastic Oracle of 2 Samuel 7, as H.G.M. Williamson has shown in his commentary on Isaiah 6-12 (T&T Clark, 2018), pp. 134.

Kenneth writes,

What about 2 Kings 14:28 that says that a king of Israel took over Damascus and Hamath, so Israel ruled over Aram? Wouldn't Aram have two kings this way? 2 Kings 15:27 says Pekah ruled Israel for 20 years. 2 Kings 16:2 says Ahaz became king of Judah in the 17th year of Pekah's reign, and 2 Kings 16:5 says Rezin, the king of Aram and Pekah, king of Israel, went to take over Jerusalem during Ahaz' reign. Then Ahaz hired the king of Assyria to take over Damascus in 2 Kings 16:5-9.

Isaiah 7:2 says: "When . . . Aram had allied itself with Ephraim." This implies that Ephraim and Aram were two different lands/countries, because this verse presupposes that Aram and Ephraim were not allied with each other.

Kenneth writes,

Israel was called a land flowing with milk and honey many times, which was considered a good thing.

Isaiah says "curds and honey," not milk and honey.

Kenneth writes,

There are a few verses in the Hebrew Bible that mention people eating curd (made from milk) and honey in good times, and not just bad times. Genesis 18:8, Deuteronomy 32:13-15, and 2 Samuel 17:29 sound like curd and honey were good things to eat.

As Etan Levine and H.G.M. Williamson (alongside others) point out, the question of whether the phrase "curds and honey" denotes an idealized land or a wilderness from destruction must be determined from the context.

Kenneth writes,

Anyway, what about the non-miraculous signs in Jeremiah 44:29-30 and Isaiah 66:19?

Isaiah 66:19 seems miraculous to me. Nations "see" his glory in the context of a new heavens and new earth.

After further research though, I do think that scholar's arguments aren't as good as I once thought it was. Additionally, Jeremiah 44:29-30 could be a counter-example as you rightly point out.

Kenneth writes,

Can you give some examples of verses where it says a miraculous sign is "from the L-rd"?

Isaiah 38:7-8: "“This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he has promised: See, I will make the shadow cast by the declining sun on the dial of Ahaz turn back ten steps.” So the sun turned back on the dial the ten steps by which it had declined."

Judges 6:17: "Gideon replied, “If now I have found favor in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me."

Jason writes,

This must be read as a unit. It cannot be broken and removed from its context. “Before the child knows to reject the bad and choose the good,... Yahweh will bring upon you (sg.)... the king of ʾAššûr” (that is, Assyria). I truly don’t know how you could read this in any other way. This connects הַנַּ֫עַר “the child” (i.e., עִמָּ֫נוּ אֵל ʿImmā́nû ʾĒl) with the invasion of Assyria. You can only miss it by breaking the verses apart and reading it without its context, which is destroying the text. “A text without its context is a pretext,” as they say.

V. 16 shows that before the boy reaches the age of accountability the country will be in a state of exile, because it implies that Judah will be abandoned. But v. 17 shows that Yahweh is bringing the king of Assyria against Ahaz. As it turns out, this is a big difficulty, but not the exile that is still coming.

Many think that verse 16 and 17 are linked asyndetically, but asyndeton marks a new paragraph. See diss. by Stephen Dempster on Discourse grammar.

Also keep in mind that many scholars take the last three words of v. 17 as a gloss/later addition (e.g., WIlliamson, Collins, etc).

Jason writes,

Do you see the switch back-and-forth between plural (vv. 13, 16–19a) and singular (vv. 14–15, 19b–20)? Would you take this to mean that it’s speaking to different people? For some reason, this happens in Hebrew, and we shouldn’t make an interpretation of a passage dependent on whether the text is using singular or plural when an obvious audience in presented in the text. In the text in question, the prophet is addressing ʾĀḥāz and his court, whether he speaks in the singular (as if to the king himself) or in the plural (as to the whole of his house).

I am well aware of the situation in Deuteronomy. This is a different problem. More or less the whole of Deuteronomy shows variation between singular and plural forms of address. This has been endlessly discussed by many scholars, but nobody has yet managed to offer a solution which all others find satisfactory. So it remains an open question. I don't think we should be too concerned with it in our context.

Jason writes,

Something that you’d need to tackle to establish your point (which hasn’t been well argued here) is why Isaiah used הָרָה hārâ (the adjective that means “pregnant”) rather than either הָֽרְתָה hārəṯâ (an assumed “prophetic perfect,” if there is such a thing) or תַּהֲרֶה tahăreh (an imperfect for the future). He says, “the ʿalmâ is pregnant” rather than “will conceive.” I don’t think your case is as solid as you think on the basis of Hebrew grammar.

You make a good point. First, it must be mentioned that Isaiah was a visionary. Even if your argument has force, it could be the case that Isaiah was reporting what he SAW in a vision. Even though the vision portrays the future, it is something Isaiah saw and hence "is pregnant." Remember to ask the genre question: what kind of literature is this. Isaiah 1:1 is the TITLE to the text, and the technical term for "vision" is used there. This is
could be helpful for determining the genre and hence one's approach to interpretation.

But the first two verbs are participles and the last is a waw consecutive perfect which is future tense. The participles can communicate a future tense here too.

Some final remarks,

Those who take this oracle as imminent have to deal with Isaiah 9 and (and I would also argue ch. 11), which seems to speak of the same figure. One can't just read Isaiah 7 and call it a day. You also have to read the larger context. One also has to bear in mind that a prophecy or an oracle is never an exact chronological account of what is to come. The biblical oracles have their own literary genre, which has nothing to do with the way we write history nowadays. So larger context is key.

Isaiah 9 is the same "Son" has Isaiah 7, and Isaiah says this about this "Son":

Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom,
to establish it, and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.

Does this apply to Hezekiah? Does this apply to any of the pre-exilic kings Judah? I'm not aware that any of them were called "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father" as well, which seems to imply divinity.

Isaiah 7 and 9 seems to be the same figure as the "Stump of Jesse" in Isaiah 11, which is traditionally seen as being a long range Messianic prediction. The cumulative evidence links the three sections revolving around Isa. 7; 9 and 11 as portraying a coming King using quite variegated imagery and symbolism. One of the connections between Isa. 7 and the section that revolves around Isa. 11 is that Isaiah has a son named Shear Jashub (which literally means 'a remnant will return'), as one can see in Isa. 7:3. But the thought of a remnant returning is communicated by Isa. 10:20-21 (Isa. 10:21 says that 'a remnant will return'). Isa. 10:20-21 lands in a section (Isaiah 10:5-34) which Christophe Rico and Jacob Stromberg (cf. "Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah," The History of Isaiah, Mohr Siebeck, 2021) have shown revolve around the Stump of Jesse oracle in Isaiah 11, and thus inaugurates it, especially since Isaiah 11:1ff. is syntactically linked with what precedes (וְיָצָ֥א). This link with Isaiah's son in Isa. 7:3, Shear Jashub (“A-Remnant-Shall-Return”), and the words “a remnant shall return” in Isa. 10:20-21, is thus developed in the Messianic oracle of Isaiah 11. Both Isa. 11:11 and Isa. 11:16 have two uses of the word שׁאר, and this word is present in 7:3 and 10:21. The Hebrew word מסלה, "highway," is also seen in Isa. 11:16, as in 7:3. There are more links noted in Stromberg's 2021 essay (pp. 319, n. 43), further strengthening the point about Shear Jashub.

[Ethan Bohr]

Thank you for writing everyone! It is nice to know that somebody, at least, is reading what I have written! And let me preface my reply by saying that, certainty usually eludes us when dealing with a text from so long ago. I should not wish to sound more dogmatic than I actually am, so I apologize if I did.

Also, I'm not here to worry about my "beliefs," so you don't have to either .

Jason writes,

The prologue of the book of Ruth has the line וְשֵׁם שְׁנֵי־בָנָיו מַחְלוֹן וְכִלְיוֹן “and the name of his two sons [was] Maḥlôn and Kilyôn” (Ruth 1:2). Claiming that the land must be one and the same land is the same as claiming here that the two sons of ʾĔlîméleḵ were the same person because the word “name” is singular. When I was in high school Spanish, we were told that in Spanish you say that se pusieron el sombrero “they put the hat on,” using the word sombrero in the singular even though we shouldn’t really imagine them all sharing a single hat! The same is happening in this verse. No one reading this text as written would really come away thinking that it’s talking about one single country. That’s hyperliteralism and a bad reading of the text.

On the good observation you have made I should make two points in reply. First, the point you raise is not the only argument I brought for my conclusion (which of course has been made by many others before me). When an argument is cumulative, as in this case, one element reinforces another. If the verse refers to Israel and Aram, then the force of the passage shifts unexpectedly from speaking negatively about Ahaz to being positive. As you may have seen from the earlier part of my remarks on this passage as a whole, Isaiah sought to encourage Ahaz in vv. 1–9 as well as 10–11, but Ahaz refused to follow his lead at which point (vv. 13–14) Isaiah was obliged to turn away to the negative (in line with the hardening saying in ch. 6). If v. 16 gives the substantiation for the Immanuel prophecy in v. 14 (as the initial kî suggests), then we expect a negative word about Judah here, as the first half of the verse taken on its own would supply (cf. 6.11). The text we now have turns this in an opposite direction.

Second, the Ruth 1.2 reference that you bring is a good example of the distributive singular. Actually, an even better example for you might be 2 Kings 25.28, as it refers to a throne. However, I should maintain that the construction in our verse is different since, although the reference to the land comes before the reference to the kings, the retrospective suffix on melakeyha comes after and so is less easily taken in the same way. Of course, there can always be exceptions to any linguistic rules, so that I cannot declare you are completely 'wrong', but it would be another anomaly to add to the others. I don't see you having a solid syntactic parallel here though.

Third, a dynastic application, both present and future, is indicated by Isaiah 7:9b's relationship with the Dynastic Oracle of 2 Samuel 7, as H.G.M. Williamson has shown in his commentary on Isaiah 6-12 (T&T Clark, 2018), pp. 134.

Kenneth writes,

What about 2 Kings 14:28 that says that a king of Israel took over Damascus and Hamath, so Israel ruled over Aram? Wouldn't Aram have two kings this way? 2 Kings 15:27 says Pekah ruled Israel for 20 years. 2 Kings 16:2 says Ahaz became king of Judah in the 17th year of Pekah's reign, and 2 Kings 16:5 says Rezin, the king of Aram and Pekah, king of Israel, went to take over Jerusalem during Ahaz' reign. Then Ahaz hired the king of Assyria to take over Damascus in 2 Kings 16:5-9.

Isaiah 7:2 says: "When . . . Aram had allied itself with Ephraim." This implies that Ephraim and Aram were two different lands/countries, because this verse presupposes that Aram and Ephraim were previously not allied with each other.

Kenneth writes,

Israel was called a land flowing with milk and honey many times, which was considered a good thing.

Isaiah says "curds and honey," not milk and honey.

Kenneth writes,

There are a few verses in the Hebrew Bible that mention people eating curd (made from milk) and honey in good times, and not just bad times. Genesis 18:8, Deuteronomy 32:13-15, and 2 Samuel 17:29 sound like curd and honey were good things to eat.

As Etan Levine and H.G.M. Williamson (alongside others) point out, the question of whether the phrase "curds and honey" denotes an idealized land or a wilderness from destruction must be determined from the context.

Kenneth writes,

Anyway, what about the non-miraculous signs in Jeremiah 44:29-30 and Isaiah 66:19?

Isaiah 66:19 seems miraculous to me. Nations "see" his glory in the context of a new heavens and new earth.

After further research though, I do think that scholar's arguments aren't as good as I once thought it was. Additionally, Jeremiah 44:29-30 could be a counter-example as you rightly point out.

Kenneth writes,

Can you give some examples of verses where it says a miraculous sign is "from the L-rd"?

Isaiah 38:7-8: "“This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he has promised: See, I will make the shadow cast by the declining sun on the dial of Ahaz turn back ten steps.” So the sun turned back on the dial the ten steps by which it had declined."

Judges 6:17: "Gideon replied, “If now I have found favor in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me."

Jason writes,

This must be read as a unit. It cannot be broken and removed from its context. “Before the child knows to reject the bad and choose the good,... Yahweh will bring upon you (sg.)... the king of ʾAššûr” (that is, Assyria). I truly don’t know how you could read this in any other way. This connects הַנַּ֫עַר “the child” (i.e., עִמָּ֫נוּ אֵל ʿImmā́nû ʾĒl) with the invasion of Assyria. You can only miss it by breaking the verses apart and reading it without its context, which is destroying the text. “A text without its context is a pretext,” as they say.

V. 16 shows that before the boy reaches the age of accountability the country will be in a state of exile, because it implies that Judah will be abandoned. But v. 17 shows that Yahweh is bringing the king of Assyria against Ahaz. As it turns out, this is a big difficulty, but not the exile that is still coming.

Many think that verse 16 and 17 are linked asyndetically, but asyndeton marks a new paragraph. See diss. by Stephen Dempster on Discourse grammar.

Also keep in mind that many scholars take the last three words of v. 17 as a gloss/later addition (e.g., WIlliamson, Collins, etc).

Jason writes,

Do you see the switch back-and-forth between plural (vv. 13, 16–19a) and singular (vv. 14–15, 19b–20)? Would you take this to mean that it’s speaking to different people? For some reason, this happens in Hebrew, and we shouldn’t make an interpretation of a passage dependent on whether the text is using singular or plural when an obvious audience in presented in the text. In the text in question, the prophet is addressing ʾĀḥāz and his court, whether he speaks in the singular (as if to the king himself) or in the plural (as to the whole of his house).

I am well aware of the situation in Deuteronomy. This is a different problem. More or less the whole of Deuteronomy shows variation between singular and plural forms of address. This has been endlessly discussed by many scholars, but nobody has yet managed to offer a solution which all others find satisfactory. So it remains an open question. I don't think we should be too concerned with it with our context here.

Jason writes,

Something that you’d need to tackle to establish your point (which hasn’t been well argued here) is why Isaiah used הָרָה hārâ (the adjective that means “pregnant”) rather than either הָֽרְתָה hārəṯâ (an assumed “prophetic perfect,” if there is such a thing) or תַּהֲרֶה tahăreh (an imperfect for the future). He says, “the ʿalmâ is pregnant” rather than “will conceive.” I don’t think your case is as solid as you think on the basis of Hebrew grammar.

You make a good point. First, it must be mentioned that Isaiah was a visionary. Even if your argument has force, it could be the case that Isaiah was reporting what he SAW in a vision. Even though the vision portrays the future, it is something Isaiah saw and hence "is pregnant." Remember to ask the genre question: what kind of literature is this. Isaiah 1:1 is the TITLE to the text, and the technical term for "vision" is used there. This is
could be helpful for determining the genre and hence one's approach to interpretation.

But the first two verbs are participles and the last is a waw consecutive perfect which is future tense. The participles can communicate a future tense here too.

Some final remarks,

Those who take this oracle as imminent have to deal with Isaiah 9 and (and I would also argue ch. 11), which seems to speak of the same figure. One can't just read Isaiah 7 and call it a day. You also have to read the larger context. One also has to bear in mind that a prophecy or an oracle is never an exact chronological account of what is to come. The biblical oracles have their own literary genre, which has nothing to do with the way we write history nowadays. So larger context is key.

Isaiah 9 is the same "Son" has Isaiah 7, and Isaiah says this about this "Son":

Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom,
to establish it, and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.

Does this apply to Hezekiah? Does this apply to any of the pre-exilic kings Judah? I'm not aware that any of them were called "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father" as well, which seems to imply divinity.

Isaiah 7 and 9 seems to be the same figure as the "Stump of Jesse" in Isaiah 11, which is traditionally seen as being a long range Messianic prediction. The cumulative evidence links the three sections revolving around Isa. 7; 9 and 11 as portraying a coming King using quite variegated imagery and symbolism. One of the connections between Isa. 7 and the section that revolves around Isa. 11 is that Isaiah has a son named Shear Jashub (which literally means 'a remnant will return'), as one can see in Isa. 7:3. But the thought of a remnant returning is communicated by Isa. 10:20-21 (Isa. 10:21 says that 'a remnant will return'). Isa. 10:20-21 lands in a section (Isaiah 10:5-34) which Christophe Rico and Jacob Stromberg (cf. "Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah," The History of Isaiah, Mohr Siebeck, 2021) have shown revolve around the Stump of Jesse oracle in Isaiah 11, and thus inaugurates it, especially since Isaiah 11:1ff. is syntactically linked with what precedes (וְיָצָ֥א). This link with Isaiah's son in Isa. 7:3, Shear Jashub (“A-Remnant-Shall-Return”), and the words “a remnant shall return” in Isa. 10:20-21, is thus developed in the Messianic oracle of Isaiah 11. Both Isa. 11:11 and Isa. 11:16 have two uses of the word שׁאר, and this word is present in 7:3 and 10:21. The Hebrew word מסלה, "highway," is also seen in Isa. 11:16, as in 7:3. There are more links noted in Stromberg's 2021 essay (pp. 319, n. 43), further strengthening the point about Shear Jashub.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
What would be the point of giving a sign that a prophecy will take place if the sign partially or fully takes place after the prophecy? Wouldn't it make more sense to happen before the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16? Are there any other signs that take place after the prophecy in the Hebrew Bible?

Ethan,
It would be interesting to read your answer to this argument.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
I don't think the son in Isaiah 7 and 9 are the same person. I don't know what kind of proof a person could offer to show that they are different people. The name of the child in Isaiah 9 is not about the child probably. That is an assumption.

[Ethan Bohr]

Hey, sorry for all of the edits and extra posts. I'm still getting used to the format on this forum.

Kenneth says,

I don't think the son in Isaiah 7 and 9 are the same person. I don't know what kind of proof a person could offer to show that they are different people.

Why do you think that they are different figures?

What would be the point of giving a sign that a prophecy will take place if the sign partially or fully takes place after the prophecy? Wouldn't it make more sense to happen before the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16? Are there any other signs that take place after the prophecy in the Hebrew Bible?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "after the prophecy." Do you mind if you clarify?

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
You asked why I think Isaiah 7 and 9 are about two different sons, and my answer is there is no reason to assume they are the same person. The verses don't say they are about the same person. People are just assuming that.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
You said that you don't think that the person in Isaiah 7:14 is an imminent figure, which I am guessing means the sign that God gives in Isaiah 7:14-16 is about a future event.

Some people say that there are two boys in Isaiah 7:14. One is from a virgin who is called "God is with us" and the other one is Isaiah's son who he brought with him and who will choose between curd and honey.
If a person says that there are two boys in the sign, then I think that would be two signs. The first one would be a boy born from a virgin many years later, and a second sign with the boy (Isaiah's son) at that time who would choose between curd and honey before the land would be taken into exile. In this case, I am not sure what the first boy would be a sign for.

Other people say it is about one person called "God is with us" who will live in the future around 700 years later and that person will fulfill the whole prophecy. If a person says that the baby will be born in the far off future, then the "sign" of the birth, etc, takes place after the prophecy of the land being taken into exile. It doesn't make sense to me that a sign would happen after the prophecy is already fulfilled.

I think the "sign" is the woman having a baby who then chooses curd or honey before the land with two kings is taken into exile. I think the prophecy part is the part about taking the land into exile.
I am not sure what you believe, but I thought you believe that the sign of the birth takes place after the prophecy is fulfilled, meaning the land will already be taken into exile. Maybe you think that the land will go into exile 700 years later. I don't know.