Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Isaiah 7:10
Moreover the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying,
10. Moreover the Lord spake again ] Better, And Jehovah spake further. The expression does not of itself imply that this second communication followed immediately on the first, but that is certainly the most natural supposition.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
10 12. Isaiah’s last ineffectual effort to bring Ahaz to the attitude of faith. A sign is offered and refused.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz,…. By the prophet Isaiah:
saying; as follows:
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Thus spake Isaiah, and Jehovah through him, to the king of Judah. Whether he replied, or what reply he made, we are not informed. He was probably silent, because he carried a secret in his heart which afforded him more consolation than the words of the prophet. The invisible help of Jehovah, and the remote prospect of the fall of Ephraim, were not enough for him. His trust was in Asshur, with whose help he would have far greater superiority over the kingdom of Israel, than Israel had over the kingdom of Judah through the help of Damascene Syria. The pious, theocratic policy of the prophet did not come in time. He therefore let the enthusiast talk on, and had his own thoughts about the matter. Nevertheless the grace of God did not give up the unhappy son of David for lost. “And Jehovah continued speaking to Ahaz as follows: Ask thee a sign of Jehovah thy God, going deep down into Hades, or high up to the height above.” Jehovah continued: what a deep and firm consciousness of the identity of the word of Jehovah and the word of the prophet is expressed in these words! According to a very marvellous interchange of idioms ( Communicatio idiomatum ) which runs through the prophetic books of the Old Testament, at one time the prophet speaks as if he were Jehovah, and at another, as in the case before us, Jehovah speaks as if He were the prophet. Ahaz was to ask for a sign from Jehovah his God. Jehovah did not scorn to call Himself the God of this son of David, who had so hardened his heart. Possibly the holy love with which the expression “ thy God ” burned, might kindle a flame in his dark heart; or possibly he might think of the covenant promises and covenant duties which the words “thy God” recalled to his mind. From this, his God, he was to ask for a sign. A sign ( ‘oth , from ‘uth , to make an incision or dent) was something, some occurrence, or some action, which served as a pledge of the divine certainty of something else. This was secured sometimes by visible miracles performed at once (Exo 4:8-9), or by appointed symbols of future events (Isa 8:18; Isa 20:3); sometimes by predicted occurrences, which, whether miraculous or natural, could not possibly be foreseen by human capacities, and therefore, if they actually took place, were a proof either retrospectively of the divine causality of other events (Exo 3:12), or prospectively of their divine certainty (Isa 37:30; Jer 44:29-30). The thing to be confirmed on the present occasion was what the prophet had just predicted in so definite a manner, viz., the maintenance of Judah with its monarchy, and the failure of the wicked enterprise of the two allied kingdoms. If this was to be attested to Ahaz in such a way as to demolish his unbelief, it could only be effected by a miraculous sign. And just as Hezekiah asked for a sign when Isaiah foretold his recovery, and promised him the prolongation of his life for fifteen years, and the prophet gave him the sign he asked, by causing the shadow upon the royal sun-dial to go backwards instead of forwards (chapter 38); so here Isaiah meets Ahaz with the offer of such a supernatural sign, and offers him the choice of heaven, earth, and Hades as the scene of the miracle.
and are either in the infinitive absolute or in the imperative; and is either the imperative with the He of challenge, which is written in this form in half pause instead of (for the two similar forms with pashtah and zakeph , vid., Dan 9:19), “Only ask, going deep down, or ascending to the height,” without there being any reason for reading with the tone upon the last syllable, as Hupfeld proposes, in the sense of profundam fac (or faciendo ) precationem (i.e., go deep down with thy petition); or else it is the pausal subordinate form for , which is quite allowable in itself (cf., yechpatz , the constant form in pause for yachpotz , and other examples, Gen 43:14; Gen 49:3, Gen 49:27), and is apparently preferred here on account of its consonance with (Ewald, 93, 3). We follow the Targum, with the Sept., Syr., and Vulgate, in giving the preference to the latter of the two possibilities. It answers to the antithesis; and if we had the words before us without points, this would be the first to suggest itself. Accordingly the words would read, Go deep down (in thy desire) to Hades, or go high up to the height; or more probably, taking and in the sense of gerundives, “Going deep down to Hades, or ( from , like vel from velle = si velis , malis ) going high up to the height.” This offer of the prophet to perform any kind of miracle, either in the world above or in the lower world, has thrown rationalistic commentators into very great perplexity. The prophet, says Hitzig, was playing a very dangerous game here; and if Ahaz had closed with his offer, Jehovah would probably have left him in the lurch. And Meier observes, that “it can never have entered the mind of an Isaiah to perform an actual miracle:” probably because no miracles were ever performed by Gthe, to whose high poetic consecration Meier compares the consecration of the prophet as described in Isa 6:1-13. Knobel answers the question, “What kind of sign from heaven would Isaiah have given in case it had been asked for?” by saying, “Probably a very simple matter.” But even granting that an extraordinary heavenly phenomenon could be a “simple matter,” it was open to king Ahaz not to be so moderate in his demands upon the venturesome prophet, as Knobel with his magnanimity might possibly have been. Dazzled by the glory of the Old Testament prophecy, a rationalistic exegesis falls prostrate upon the ground; and it is with such frivolous, coarse, and common words as these that it tries to escape from its difficulties. It cannot acknowledge the miraculous power of the prophet, because it believes in no miracles at all. But Ahaz had no doubt about his miraculous power, though he would not be constrained by any miracle to renounce his own plans and believe in Jehovah. “But Ahaz replied, I dare not ask, and dare not tempt Jehovah.” What a pious sound this has! And yet his self-hardening reached its culminating point in these well-sounding words. He hid himself hypocritically under the mask of Deu 6:16, to avoid being disturbed in his Assyrian policy, and was infatuated enough to designate the acceptance of what Jehovah Himself had offered as tempting God. He studiously brought down upon himself the fate denounced in Isa 6:1-13, and indeed not upon himself only, but upon all Judah as well. For after a few years the forces of Asshur would stand upon the same fuller’s field (Isa 36:2) and demand the surrender of Jerusalem. In that very hour, in which Isaiah was standing before Ahaz, the fate of Jerusalem was decided for more than two thousand years.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Promise of Immanuel. | B. C. 740. |
10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Here, I. God, by the prophet, makes a gracious offer to Ahaz, to confirm the foregoing predictions, and his faith in them, by such sign or miracle as he should choose (Isa 7:10; Isa 7:11): Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; See here the divine faithfulness and veracity. God tells us nothing but what he is able and ready to prove. See his wonderful condescension to the children of men, in that he is so willing to show to the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, Heb. vi. 17. He considers our frame, and that, living in a world of sense, we are apt to require sensible proofs, which therefore he has favoured us with in sacramental signs and seals. Ahaz was a bad man, yet God is called the Lord his God, because he was a child of Abraham and David, and of the covenants made with them. See how gracious God is even to the evil and unthankful; Ahaz is bidden to choose his sign, as Gideon about the fleece (Judg. vi. 37); let him ask for a sign in the air, or earth, or water, for God’s power is the same in all.
II. Ahaz rudely refuses this gracious offer, and (which is not mannerly towards any superior) kicks at the courtesy, and puts a slight upon it (v. 12): I will not ask. The true reason why he would not ask for a sign was because, having a dependence upon the Assyrians, their forces, and their gods, for help, he would not thus far be beholden to the God of Israel, or lay himself under obligations to him. He would not ask a sign for the confirming of his faith because he resolved to persist in his unbelief, and would indulge his doubts and distrusts; yet he pretends a pious reason: I will not tempt the Lord; as if it would be a tempting of God to do that which God himself invited and directed him to do. Note, A secret disaffection to God is often disguised with the specious colours of respect to him; and those who are resolved that they will not trust God yet pretend that they will not tempt him.
III. The prophet reproves him and his court, him and the house of David, the whole royal family, for their contempt of prophecy, and the little value they had for divine revelation (v. 13) “Is it a small thing for you to weary men by your oppression and tyranny, with which you make yourselves burdensome and odious to all mankind? But will you weary my God also with the affronts you put upon him?” As the unjust judge that neither feared God nor regarded man, Luke xviii. 2. You have wearied the Lord with your words, Mal. ii. 17. Nothing is more grievous to the God of heaven than to be distrusted. “Will you weary my God? Will you suppose him to be tired and unable to help you, or to be weary of doing you good? Whereas the youths may faint and be weary, you may have tired all your friends, the Creator of the ends of the earth faints not, neither is weary.” ch. xl. 28-31. Or this: “In affronting the prophets, you think you put a slight only upon men like yourselves, and consider not that you affront God himself, whose messengers they are, and put a slight upon him, who will resent it accordingly.” The prophet here calls God his God with a great deal of pleasure: Ahaz would not say, He is my God, though the prophet had invited him to say so (v. 11): The Lord thy God; but Isaiah will say, “He is mine.” Note, Whatever others do, we must avouch the Lord for ours and abide by him.
IV. The prophet, in God’s name, gives them a sign: “You will not ask a sign, but the unbelief of man shall not make the promise of God of no effect: The Lord himself shall give you a sign (v. 14), a double sign.”
1. “A sign in general of his good-will to Israel and to the house of David. You may conclude it that he has mercy in store for you, and that you are not forsaken of your God, how great soever your present distress and danger are; for of your nation, of your family, the Messiah is to be born, and you cannot be destroyed while that blessing is in you, which shall be introduced,” (1.) “In a glorious manner; for, whereas you have been often told that he should be born among you, I am now further to tell you that he shall be born of a virgin, which will signify both the divine power and the divine purity with which he shall be brought into the world,–that he shall be a extraordinary person, for he shall not be born by ordinary generation,–and that he shall be a holy thing, not stained with the common pollutions of the human nature, therefore incontestably fit to have the throne of his father David given him.” Now this, though it was to be accomplished above 500 years after, was a most encouraging sign to the house of David (and to them, under that title, this prophecy is directed, v. 13) and an assurance that God would not cast them off. Ephraim did indeed envy Judah (ch. xi. 13) and sought the ruin of that kingdom, but could not prevail; for the sceptre should never depart from Judah till the coming of Shiloh, Gen. xlix. 10. Those whom God designs for the great salvation may take that for a sign to them that they shall not be swallowed up by any trouble they meet with in the way. (2.) The Messiah shall be introduced on a glorious errand, wrapped up in his glorious name: They shall call his name Immanuel–God with us, God in our nature, God at peace with us, in covenant with us. This was fulfilled in their calling him Jesus–a Saviour (Matt. i. 21-25), for, if he had not been Immanuel–God with us, he could not have been Jesus–a Saviour. Now this was a further sign of God’s favour to the house of David and the tribe of Judah; for he that intended to work this great salvation among them no doubt would work out for them all those other salvations which were to be the types and figures of this, and as it were preludes to this. “Here is a sign for you, not in the depth nor in the height, but in the prophecy, in the promise, in the covenant made with David, which you are no strangers to. The promised seed shall be Immanuel, God with us; let that word comfort you (ch. viii. 10), that God is with us, and (v. 8) that your land is Immanuel’s land. Let not the heart of the house of David be moved thus (v. 2), nor let Judah fear the setting up of the son of Tabeal (v. 6), for nothing can cut off the entail on the Son of David that shall be Immanuel.” Note, The strongest consolations, in time of trouble, are those which are borrowed from Christ, our relation to him, our interest in him, and our expectations of him and from him. Of this child it is further foretold (v. 15) that though he shall not be born like other children, but of a virgin, yet he shall be really and truly man, and shall be nursed and brought up like other children: Butter and honey shall he eat, as other children do, particularly the children of that land which flowed with milk and honey. Though he be conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, yet he shall not therefore be fed with angels’ food, but, as it becomes him, shall be in all things made like unto his brethren, Heb. ii. 17. Nor shall he, though born thus by extraordinary generation, be a man immediately, but, as other children, shall advance gradually through the several states of infancy, childhood, and youth, to that of manhood, and growing in wisdom and stature, shall at length wax strong in spirit, and come to maturity, so as to know how to refuse the evil and choose the good. See Luk 2:40; Luk 2:52. Note, Children are fed when they are little that they may be taught and instructed when they have grown up; they have their maintenance in order to their education.
2. Here is another sign in particular of the speedy destruction of these potent princes that were now a terror to Judah, v. 16. “Before this child (so it should be read), this child which I have now in my arms” (he means not Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son, whom he was ordered to take with him for a sign, v. 3), “before this child shall know how to refuse the evil and choose the good” (and those who saw what his present stature and forwardness were would easily conjecture how long that would be), “before this child be three or four years older, the land that thou abhorrest, these confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast such an enmity to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both their kings, both Pekah and Rezin,” who were in so close an alliance that they seemed as if they were the kings of but one kingdom. This was fully accomplished; for within two or three years after this, Hoshea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (2 Kings xv. 30), and, before that, the king of Assyria took Damascus, and slew Rezin, 2 Kings xvi. 9. Nay, there was a present event, which happened immediately, and when this child carried the prediction of in his name, which was a pledge and earnest of this future event. Shear-jashub signifies The remnant shall return, which doubtless points at the wonderful return of those 200,000 captives whom Pekah and Rezin had carried away, who were brought back, not by might or power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts. Read the story, 2 Chron. xxviii. 8-15. The prophetical naming of this child having thus had its accomplishment, no doubt this, which was further added concerning him, should have its accomplishment likewise, that Syria and Israel should be deprived of both their kings. One mercy from God encourages us to hope for another, if it engages us to prepare for another.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verse 10-18: A SIGN FOR AHAZ
1. Speaking through the prophet, the Lord challenges Ahaz to ask for a sign — to assure his heart that the prophetic word is utterly trustworthy, (Verse 10-11; Isa 37:30; Isa 38:7-8; Isa 55:13; 2Ki 19:29-31).
2. But, the king’s mind is made up; he is not interested in any word from the Lord. Furthermore, he WILL NOT ask; AHAZ will not tempt THE LORD! (Not recognzing that his disobedience, in refusing to ask, is doing just that.) Instead, he takes the fatal step of sending a large tribute to Tiglath-pileser (the Assyrian) – asking his aid, (2Ki 16:7-8).
3. Isaiah rebukes the king for this outrage (Verse 13; comp. Isa 1:14; Isa 43:24), and tells him that he WILL HAVE a sign: the God of the prophet (“My God”, comp. Isa 25:1) is DETERMINED that he will have it!
4. The prophecy recorded in verses 14-15 is far-reaching, and of deep significance – having a two-fold fulfillment: one near, and symbolic; the other ultimate, complete and glorious.
a. The near fulfillment (as a sign of Ahaz) will be revealed in the birth of a second child (a son) to be conceived shortly by the prophetess (Isaiah’s own wife). His divinely-given name, “Maher-shal-al-hash-baz”, meaning “the spoil speedeth, the prey hasteth”, suggests the imminent overthrow of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition of which Ahaz is so miserably afraid. The very name of this “sign-child” (as related to Judah’s enemies) is adequate assurance to the prophet (and should be to the king) that “God is with us”!
b. The distant, ultimate fulfillment (for the glory of the “house of David”) will be realized in the incarnation of the very Son of God (born of a virgin) to sit on the re-established throne of His father David, and to rule gloriously – not only-over a re-united Israel, but over all the earth, (Luk 1:32-33).
5. Let there be no misunderstanding: THIS AUTHOR FIRMLY BELIEVES IN THE MIRACULOUS, VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST – Son of Man and Son of God! He does NOT believe, however, that God ever intended that Isa 7:14 should become a theological battlefield on which the issue of that virgin birth should be decided. Intellectual honesty, and contextual evidence, forces him to take a stand that is somewhat different from that sincerely held by many of his beloved brethren.
a. Considerable controversy has raged, among respected and competent commentators, with regard to the usage of the Hebrew word “almah” in this passage. Much of it has been highly emotional, and involved more rhetoric than reason. Some assert (as Criswell, in his footnotes on this passage) that “In the seven instances in which it appears, it is not once used of anyone other than a’virgin’, (Gen 24:23; Exo 2:8; Psa 68:25; Pro 30:19; Son 1:3; Son 6:8).” Yet, there seems little concern that in three of these passages (even in the King James version) it is rendered “maid” (Exo 2:8; Pro 30:19) and “damsels” (Psa 68:25).
b. Others have suggested, with equal conviction, that to insist on the rendering of “virgin”, in this passage, is to force New Testament interpretation on Old Testament revelation. And that such interpretation totally ignores the contextual usage – wherein it was to be a “sign” for Ahaz – whatever future implication it might hold for the “house of David”.
c. Whatever view one may hold on the basic meaning of “almah”, the immediate context (and near fulfillment, as a “sign” for Ahaz) requires a rendering consistent with the conception and birth of a SECOND “sign-child” to the wife of the prophet.
d. Though “the prophetess” (through whom the sign was given to Ahaz) could NOT be regarded as a “virgin” (Isa 8:3-4; Isa 8:8); Matthew, alluding to the passage centuries later (in connection with the birth of Jesus), is perfectly justified (under the Spirit’s direction) in using “parthenos” (Gk. Mat 1:23) – the strongest possible word for “virgin” afforded by the Greek language – as he records the angelic revelation to the heavy-hearted Joseph (Nor is it unusual for New Testament writers to exercise great liberty in unfolding from Old Testament passages far richer and fuller meaning than was possible, or even proper, in their original contexts.) cp. Psa 68:18 with Eph 4:8 and Psa 40:6 with Heb 10:5.
e. The absurdity advocated by some – that every pious daughter in Israel kept herself pure in the hope that she might be selected as the “virgin” through which Messiah would be born – is evident in the TOTAL UNAWARENESS of the virgin Mary that such a thing was even POSSIBLE!. (Luk 1:34).
f. The import of this prophecy, in all its glorious fullness, will be realized ONLY in the coming millennial era, when Jesus, the Messiah, rules as King of kings, and Lord of lords.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
10. And Jehovah added to speak to Ahaz. (108) As the Lord knew that King Ahaz was so wicked as not to believe the promise, so he enjoins Isaiah to confirm him by adding a sign; for when God sees that his promises do not satisfy us, he makes additions to them suitable to our weakness; so that we not only hear him speak, but likewise behold his hand displayed, and thus are confirmed by an evident proof of the fact. Here we ought carefully to observe the use of signs, that is, the reason why God performs miracles, namely, to confirm us in the belief of his word; for when we see his power, if we have any hesitation about what he says to us, our doubt is removed by beholding the thing itself; for miracles added to the word are seals.
(108) Moreover, the LORD spake again to Ahaz. — Eng. Ver.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
2.
THE CHRIST Isa. 7:10-16
TEXT: Isa. 7:10-16
10
And Jehovah spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11
Ask thee a sign of Jehovah thy God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above.
12
But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt Jehovah.
13
And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also?
14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.
15
Butter and honey shall he eat when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken.
QUERIES
a.
Was Ahaz right in refusing to tempt Jehovah?
b.
Who is the virgin?
c.
Why mention that the child would eat butter and honey?
PARAPHRASE
Not long after this, the Lord sent this further message to King Ahaz: Ask Me for a sign, Ahaz, to prove that I will indeed crush your enemies as I have said. Ask anything you like, in heaven or on earth. But the king refused. No, he said, Ill not bother the Lord with anything like that. Then Isaiah said, O House of David, you arent satisfied to exhaust my patience; you exhaust the Lords as well! All right then, the Lord Himself will choose the signa child shall be born to a virgin! And she shall call Him Immanuel (meaning, God is with us.). By the time it would take for the child to be weaned and come to know right from wrong, the two kings you fear so muchthe kings of Israel and Syriawill be dead.
COMMENTS
Isa. 7:10-13 THE SIGN OFFERED AND REFUSED: Ahaz made no move to show that he believed Gods promise concerning the continuity of the kingdom of Judah. He was silent. God, to stir up his faith, offers a sign to guarantee fulfillment of His promise. Ahaz haughtily refuses the sign in language he intended should sound pious and loyal, but Ahaz had already decided to do his own will. He knew as well as anyone that when God commands a man to ask for a sign it is not putting God to the test to obey Him. Ahaz, like many others before and after him, wanted to work things out in his own way! His way seemed to be so much better. To be an ally of this great and feared monarch of Assyria was so much better than being an ally of an invisible God. Isaiah rebukes the king (Isa. 7:13) by pointing out that the king may try the patience of men (Gods prophets) and not suffer dire consequences, but it is no small matter to try the patience of Jehovah by hypocrisy and rebelliousness.
Isa. 7:14-16 THE SIGN COMPELLED: Ahaz tried to fool the prophet with his feigned piety. But God was not fooled and spoke through Isaiah that He would give Ahaz a sign whether the king wanted one or not. This sign would not be wasted, as we shall see, for it would establish the faithfulness and veracity of God to keep His covenant. And if Ahaz refused to appropriate it, others of the house of David would!
To consider the sign here to be given, one must first consider the Hebrew word almah, translated in the ASV virgin and in the RSV young woman and in some other versions maiden. The Hebrew and English Lexicon of The Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs says of almah, young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married). Gesenius Hebrew lexicon, the accepted authority among practically all Hebrew lexicographers says, a girl of marriageable age . . . the notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys, for which the proper word is bethulah. Keil and Delitzsch say in their commentary here, . . . whilst bethulah signifies a maiden living in seclusion in her parents house and still a long way from matrimony, almah is applied to one fully mature, and approaching the time of her marriage . . . It is also admitted that the idea of spotless virginity was not necessarily connected with almah, since there are passages (e.g. Son. 6:8 where it can hardly be distinguished from the Arabic surrije); and a person who had a very young-looking wife might be said to have an almah for his wife . . . the expression itself warrants the assumption that by almah the prophet meant one of the young maidens of the kings (Ahaz) harem . . . We conclude then, that a child was to be born to one who might be a young woman who was a virgin, or a young woman of marriageable age not necessarily a virgin, or a married woman who was very young looking, or perhaps a young woman who was a member of a kings harem whatever her state of virginity.
Perhaps the more immediate question is, Who is Immanuel? The literal meaning of the word is, of course, God with us. It should be apparent that Immanuel of Isa. 7:14, Isa. 8:8, and the child of Isa. 9:6 and the branch of Isa. 11:1 ff is one and the same mighty divine personage. This can be none other than Christ, the Messiah. But, if the passage here under discussion (Isa. 7:10-16) constitutes a real prophecy of Christ, how are we to explain the plain reference in Isa. 7:16 to events belonging to the days of Ahaz and Isaiah? How can the coming of Christ to years of discretion, some seven centuries after Ahaz, be made to fix the time for the forsaking of the land of Israel and Syria? And how could a childs coming to age of understanding some seven centuries after Ahaz be a sign to Ahaz? Surely some more immediate birth of a child must be in view here.
The late Dr. J. Gresham Machen, famous defender of the inspiration of the scriptures and world-renowned scholar, wrote in his classical work, The Virgin Birth of Christ, In reply, either one of two things may be said. In the first place, it may be held that the prophet has before him in vision the birth of the child Immanuel, and that irrespective of the ultimate fulfillment the vision itself is present. I see a wonderful child, the prophet on this interpretation would say, a wonderful child whose birth shall bring salvation to his people; and before such a period of time shall elapse as would lie between the conception of the child in his mothers womb and his coming to years of discretion, the land of Israel and Syria shall be forsaken.
In the second place, one may hold that in the passage some immediate birth of a child is in view, but that that event is to be taken as the foreshadowing of the greater event that was to come . . . So in our passage, the prophet, when he placed before the rebellious Ahaz that strange picture of the mother and the child, was not only promising deliverance to Judah in the period before a child then born should know how to refuse evil and choose the good, but also, moved by the Spirit of God, was looking forward, as in a dim and mysterious vision, to the day when the true Immanuel, the mighty God and Prince of Peace, should lie as a little babe in a virgins arms.
According to Machens second explanation, then, a young woman (almah) contemporary with Ahaz and Isaiah would conceive and bear a son and call his name Immanuel. Before this child should reach the age to be able to choose the good and refuse evil, Israel and Syria would no longer be a threat to Judah. This contemporary almah and her child was a type of the virgin Mary and her child, the Christ! In view of the many prophecies of the Old Testament which have two fulfillments and are typical of the Messiah or the messianic age (Hos. 11:1 etc.), and in view of the plain necessity for a contemporary sign to Ahaz, we have no problem in accepting Machens second explanation.
But who is the almah whose child-bearing in Ahaz day constitutes the sign that Jehovah gives? Two unsatisfactory answers have been given in the past: (a) Isaiahs wife. She named her son Maher-shalal-hash-baz and the almahs son was to be named Immanuel. Besides, Isaiahs wife would hardly be a young-looking woman since Isaiah was about 60 years old at this time; (b) Ahaz wife, Abi (Abijah), mother of Hezekiah. But Hezekiah was born before Ahaz came to the throne (as pointed out by Jerome) so his birth could not have been referred to within the reign of Ahaz as lying still in the future! Who she was we do not know. We do know that she and the birth of her child and the divine deliverance of Judah connected to that birth became a type of the virgin who would conceive when the Holy Spirit came upon her and give birth to the Messiah who would bring the divine deliverance from sin and death finally and completely (Mat. 1:23), and would sit upon the throne of Judah forever. This is the concept Ahaz refused to believe, that Gods throne, Gods people, Gods covenant could be perpetuated without some recourse to human power. So Ahaz thought to protect the throne of Judah and perpetuate it by making alliance with pagan Assyria. Ahaz assured himself that Assyria was his only source of help against Israel and Syria.
But God told Ahaz that he would be given a sign of the divine power to protect and perpetuate the throne of Judah whether Ahaz wanted such divine help or not! The immediate sign to Ahaz (and all in his day) of the divine protection of the covenant would be the fulfillment of Isaiahs prediction that within a very short time the lands of Pekah and Rezin would be made desolate. The very short time is indicated by the prediction that before the child born to the almah could come to the age to make the moral choice of good and evil, these lands would be desolate. This time element is the real focus of the sign for Ahaz. Some have said that within two or three years from birth most children are able to choose good and reject evil. Isaiah delivered Gods sign to Ahaz approximately 734 B.C. and in 732 B.C. Tiglath-Pileser captured Damascus (capitol of Syria) and invaded Israel. This immediate demonstration of Gods foreknowledge and power in the perpetuation of His covenant of redemption should establish and confirm His faithfulness to complete His work of redemption in the dim and distant future in the child and the branch who would be Immanuel. This is the aim of Isa. 7:14, and this is the application the inspired gospel writer, Matthew, made of the prophecy. The conception of the virgin Mary was the signal to all the world that God had at last arrived at the time for consummation of all His promises of establishing the throne of Judah forever. And the sign given to Ahaz was a type of this divine entry into history given seven centuries in advance.
The child born to the almah contemporary with Ahaz will eat butter and honey up to the day it shall be able to choose good and evil. In other words, the danger to Judah, then being caused by the war upon it by Pekah and Rezin would be only temporarytwo or three years at the most. Butter and honey are not the ordinary food of an agricultural population. Rather such a diet indicates shortage of staple foods. Judah, under attack by the northern coalition, was suffering food shortages, but God would deliver them from this in a short time. However, because of Ahaz unbelief and his enslavement of the whole country to Assyria, they would soon be back on their starvation diets (Cf. Isa. 7:22).
QUIZ
1.
What may the Hebrew word almah mean?
2.
Who is the Immanuel of Isa. 7:14?
3.
What are two possible interpretations of the sign to be given to Ahaz?
4.
Why could the almah of Ahaz day not be Isaiahs wife?
5.
What is the overall idea God is attempting to deliver to Ahaz?
6.
What is the application of this prophecy to the conception of the virgin Mary, Mat. 1:23?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
10. Moreover again In addition to these encouragements is offered a sign to confirm them. The very offer of a “sign,” and especially of a “sign” at Ahaz’s choice, however extraordinary, implies his want of faith in the assurances.
The Lord That is, Jehovah God; for wherever the word LORD in capitals appears in the Old Testament, the Hebrew is generally Jehovah. And Jehovah was the proper name of the God of Judah, as Moloch was the proper name of the god of Ammon, perhaps, also, of Phoenicia or Tyre. The pagans believed in the reality of national gods, of different degrees of power, holding the most powerful nations to be made so by their gods being most powerful. The cause of Ahaz’s undervaluing Isaiah’s encouragements was, his being on this point a pagan. He had already “sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me.” 2Ch 28:23. But at this present moment he has his mind’s eye upon still mightier deities, even the gods of ASSYRIA. So that the issue now is between Jehovah and Assyria. Isaiah and orthodox Israel held that Jehovah was indeed their own national God; but that he was also God of the earth, sole and supreme, all other gods being fictions, and their images and idols but fancy furniture, worthy to be burnt.
Spake Through the mouth of Isaiah.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Miserable Failure of Ahaz and God’s Judgment On His House ( Isa 7:10-17 ).
We must not underestimate this incident. In this total turnabout of history in Israel’s most crucial time, for it would determine the whole of the future, the scion of the house of David rejects God’s protection, and, uniquely, God’s offer of a striking supernatural sign, and the result is that he and his descendants born from his seed are thereby debarred from being the future Davidic king. Because of Ahaz’s shameful lack of response, the future expected king is not to be descended from his seed, but will be miraculously born.
Analysis of Isa 7:10-17.
a And Yahweh spoke again to Ahaz saying, “you may ask a sign of Yahweh your God. Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above” (Isa 7:10-11).
b But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test out Yahweh” (Isa 7:12).
c And he said, “Hear you now, O house of David, is it a small thing for you to weary men, that you will weary my God also?” (Isa 7:13).
c “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign, behold a virginal young woman will conceive and bear a son and will call his name Immanuel” (Isa 7:14).
b “He will eat butter and honey when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, for before the child will know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you hate will be forsaken” (Isa 7:15-16).
a “Yahweh will bring on you, and on your people, and on your father’s house, days that have not come from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah, even the King of Assyria” (Isa 7:17).
In ‘a’ Ahaz is offered a sign, either in the depth or in the height above. In the parallel he is given a sign ‘in the depth’, the invasion of Assyria. In ‘b’ Ahaz in unbelief refuses the sign, and in the parallel receives a sign ‘in the height’, of a (miraculous) child who will be born at a time of oppression and poverty. In ‘c’ the house of David has wearied God, and in the parallel will be replaced by a miraculous child who will not be descended from Ahaz.
God Makes Ahaz An Astounding Offer ( Isa 7:10-12 ).
Isa 7:10-12
‘And Yahweh spoke again to Ahaz saying, “you may ask a sign of Yahweh your God. Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.” But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test out Yahweh.’
God’s backing of Ahaz if only he would believe was so assured that He graciously offered a sign of any magnitude so as to bolster Ahaz’s flagging faith, simply because he was the son of David. Note that there was no limit to what he could ask. Here in one sense was the most favoured man in history. This demonstrates the crucial nature of what was involved. Clearly a remarkable, even incredible, miraculous sign was being offered (compare Isa 38:7-8). And yet Ahaz refused to ask for the sign. His reply was not as pious as it sounds. What he was effectively doing was dismissing Yahweh as an option. He was refusing the offer. For to take up the offer to ‘test out Yahweh’, would be to bind him to Yahweh, and he did not wish to be bound. He was a man of no genuine faith.
‘Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.’ The range offered was remarkably wide, going down into Sheol, or the depths of the sea, or rising up to the heavens among sun, moon and stars. God was willing for any required sign to be asked for, even something outside the sphere of living man’s experience, something unusual, awesome and miraculous, greater even than those granted to Moses, Joshua (Jos 3:5-8; Jos 11:12-14) and Gideon (Jdg 6:36-40). There was no limit. Thus Ahaz was left without excuse. His refusal was the direct result of his attitude as being anti-Yahweh. He was openly and directly rejecting obedience to the covenant. Rarely if ever has a man had such an offer and refused it. No wonder God was angry. Such a statement from God was clearly preparing the way for a genuinely awesome event, and that is precisely the kind of sign that Yahweh gives him, although not in the way originally intended. In view of what God had offered Ahaz, any sign He now gave had to be incredible and amazing. And so it was, ‘A virgin will bear a child.’
‘Of Yahweh YOUR God.’ The ‘your’ is emphatic. Contrast ‘my’ in Isa 7:13.
The Offer Refused God Declares His Particular Judgment on Ahaz – The Coming King Will Now Not Be of His Seed But Will Be Miraculously Born ( Isa 7:13-17 ).
In order to fully appreciate the words that follow we have to get into the electric atmosphere of the moment. Here God, quite understanding that, in the light both of the threat of the nations allied against him, and of the King of Assyria, Ahaz was afraid, had offered him any sign that he asked for, of whatever nature, however miraculous, a sign to surpass any that had ever been given before. Such a build up could only result in an outstanding miracle. Clearly any response by Yahweh must include such a sign, for this is what the whole narrative has been leading to. If Ahaz will not ask for a sign, then Yahweh will give him a sign of such proportions that it can never be doubted. But because God never seeks directly to convert unbelievers by miraculous signs it has to be in the form of a declaration about the future.
Isa 7:13-14
‘And he said, “Hear you now, O house of David, is it a small thing for you to weary men, that you will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign, behold a virginal young woman will conceive and bear a son and will call his name Immanuel.”
Isaiah replies forcefully to Ahaz’s words, addressing him as the ‘house of David’, the Davidic representative of that house. In the face of the promises to the Davidic house he is appalled at Ahaz’s attitude. Here was a dreadful thing indeed. The anointed of Yahweh refusing the command of Yahweh in the face of the threats of the nations (contrast Psa 2:1-2). He challenges the king on the basis that he has already wearied men by his behaviour, (Isaiah and those of the leadership who support him?), and that that is no small thing, although as a king he gets away with it for the time being. But he will surely recognise that he cannot treat God like this? That is going too far. In view of the fact that he has refused a remarkable sign God now has a remarkable sign for him. It will not, however, now be a favourable sign but a sign of his rejection. For that is the whole point behind these words. As he is wearying God by his prevarication in refusing to accept a remarkable sign, a remarkable sign will now be given to him but instead of being a sign of blessing it will be a sign of rejection.
The situation is very similar to that of Saul previously. The anointed of Yahweh had flouted the direct command of Yahweh and was therefore rejected and replaced in the mind of God long before he ceased to be king (1Sa 15:26; 1Sa 16:14), even though it would take time to work itself out before men (1 Samuel 31). In the case of Saul this was evidenced by the secret anointing of the young David before the actual physical transfer of power took place some time later (1Sa 16:13-14). But here it is to be evidenced by something even more startling, the promise of the unusual birth of a remarkable child. Again, although in secret, the transfer of power was taking place.
The use by Isaiah of ‘my God’ is in itself suggesting the rejection of Ahaz by God. Isaiah now sees Ahaz as excluded from the right to see Yahweh as his God. By pointedly rejecting the use of ‘our God’ Isaiah is excluding Ahaz from the company of those who can call Yahweh ‘my God’, and thereby rejecting him as the Davidic representative.
For whether Ahaz likes it or not, Yahweh, the ‘sovereign Lord Himself’, does intend to give him a sign. And that sign is of a virginal young woman who will bear a son and call his name Immanuel – ‘God with us’. What an impossible thing. A sign indeed ‘in the heights above’. And God’s guarantee of it is a sign to Ahaz (for what God has said, He will do) that his own position is no longer tenable. In the future Ahaz can no longer anticipate the possibility that he or his blood descendants might be Immanuel, the ultra-successful coming king. For now when Immanuel comes he will not be from the house of Ahaz. He will be supernaturally born.
The word for young woman (‘almah) is never, as far as is known, used of a non-virgin or married woman. It refers to a young woman of marriageable age, with growing sexual desires, who is not yet married, and thus is assumed to be a virgin. The use of ‘almah in Son 6:8-9 confirms this. There it is contrasted with queens and concubines and clearly describes those who are in the same situation as the loved one, unmarried and virginal, and in Isa 7:9 it is associated with ‘the daughters’ of their mothers, (they have not yet left their own households), the many compared with the one. It is a word containing the idea of sexual purity, without the taint that had come on the word bethulah which was specifically linked with pagan deities of doubtful morality, and did not strictly mean a pure virgin at this time (compare Joe 1:8).
As this is intended to be a sign of unusual significance (‘in the depth, or in the height above’ – Isa 7:10) it is clear that it is not just to be seen as an illustration in passing. We are probably to see Isa 7:14 as meaning ‘I will give you such a sign as I offered’. That is required by the context. To suggest that it is simply using an ordinary birth as a sign (say, of the prophet’s wife or one of Ahaz’s wives) is to go totally against the significance of the words and of the whole situation. A remarkable and unusual sign is required here. This is promising something so unusual as to constitute absolute evidence of God’s direct intervention. At the very least it is saying that someone totally unexpected, who would not naturally be seen as a child-bearer, will have a child.
Nor can it have an illegitimate birth in mind, for that would not have been seen as either unusual or evidence of God’s activity, and this especially as the child is to be called ‘God with us’. Rather than being a divine sign such a birth would have been seen as a matter for severe condemnation. (Only the modern day with its loose morality could turn such an idea into something glorious).
It is true that in Isa 8:3-4 the birth of a son to Isaiah’s wife the prophetess is described, and he too is indicative of the length of time within which Syria and Israel will be spoiled by Assyria (Isa 8:4), but that is no unusual sign. It is simply a confirmation of the situation being described here. Births were commonplace, and there is no suggestion of anything unusual abut his birth, and the name given to the child is very different, with different implications (Maher-shalal-hash-baz – ‘haste the spoil, speed the prey’) and not even suggestive of ‘God with us’. It can hardly be seen as a sign of the kind in mind from the sovereign Lord Himself.
Who then is this son? The context later tells us. In Isa 9:6 reference is made to an unusual child who is to be born, who is described as having the name ‘Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’. This child is to establish the everlasting kingdom. That will be a sign indeed. The name Immanuel – ‘God with us’ – thus fits well with him in every way. God is decidedly with him in what he is ‘named’, and God will be with him in the establishing of the finally triumphant kingdom. Thus we are well justified in seeing this unusual and significant birth pronouncement as applying to him. Here truly is a worthy sign from the sovereign Lord.
This brings home the high expectations there were for the house of David at this time. The throne of its kingship was to be established for ever (2Sa 7:13; 2Sa 7:16), its representative was Yahweh’s anointed (Psa 2:2), Yahweh’s begotten son (through adoption) (Psa 2:7), whose final destiny was to rule and judge the nations to the uttermost parts of the earth (Psa 2:8-9), so much so that he could be likened to God because he stands in the place of God and is appointed above all kings both great and small (Psa 45:6-7). Thus he will one day be called Wonderful (compare Jdg 13:18), Mighty God, Everlasting Father (Isa 9:6). His ascent to some kind of divinity is clear. Jesus certainly saw it in this way (Mat 22:41-44). So there is no wonder that He should experience an unusual and divinely accomplished birth.
We can compare also the high expectation spoken of by Micah, ‘But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little among the thousands of Judah, out of you will one come forth to me who is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting’ (Mic 5:2). There too we find the expectation of an extraordinary child.
What then is the significance of this sign to Ahaz? It is that when this great prince comes, in the imminent (but not necessarily immediate) future, he will not be born by descent from Ahaz, but will be wonderfully born without human father, closely associated with the house of David so as to be seen as the Davidic heir, but not of it, so as to escape the taint of Ahaz. It is a specific sign of Ahaz’s rejection. Rather than Ahaz’s seed inheriting the promises made to the Davidic house, another will arise to fulfil the promises made to David, replacing Ahaz and his seed, for God will ensure by a miracle that he will not be of Ahaz’s seed. It is Ahaz’s final humiliation, a sign that he has brought an unusual kind of rejection on the house of David. In him the house of David has so wearied God, that God will work a wonder so great that the coming Greater David will be of it and yet not of it. This would hit at the very root of Ahaz’s pride in what he saw himself to be, the Davidic representative, and as such one who was uniquely exalted. Now he was being substantially downgraded and totally disinherited. The very divine right of the king was being overthrown.
This idea of One born from a virginal young woman would not be the problem to Isaiah and his hearers that it is to the modern day. They looked back and remembered that Isaac, the chosen son, had been born by God’s miraculous intervention (Gen 17:17-19; Gen 21:1-2). They remembered that Manoah’s wife had been barren and had had her womb made fruitful by God (Jdg 13:3), thus producing the great deliverer Samson. They remembered that the mother of the great Samuel had also been unable to bear children (1Sa 1:5), and that she too had been miraculously touched by God (1Sa 1:19-20), and had thus borne that even greater deliverer. And all these births had been at vital times for God’s people. So the thought that such a miraculous birth would occur in the future, even more miraculous than them, would demonstrate to them that the covenant God was still with them, working His wonders (for a similar use of the promise of a future event as a sign compare Exo 3:12).
The name Immanuel (God with us) is also significant. The people of Judah saw the Davidic house as evidence that God was ‘with them’. Were not all His promises to be brought about through them? Thus God may well be saying here that the name Immanuel (God is with us) can no longer be applied to the house of David as represented in Ahaz, for God is no longer with them, but will uniquely now apply to the coming King. It is He who will be called Immanuel.
But it may be asked how such a future birth could be a sign to the house of Ahaz? The answer is that because of the nature of what the sign was declaring there was no necessity for the birth actually to be witnessed at that time. God was not now seeking to convert or comfort or reassure Ahaz by the sign. That opportunity had been refused. This was not an attempt to convince Ahaz. Rather by it God was declaring that by His own miraculous intervention He would disinherit Ahaz. His declaration of what He would do was therefore sufficient sign to Ahaz of what would be. It constituted the guarantee of a miraculous event some time in the future whose consequence would be the total disinheriting of Ahaz. Thus the guarantee of it happening was all the sign required. Ahaz was finished. He could now only wait with foreboding in his heart, knowing that his own fate was sealed, watching with fear the birth of every royal child. Outwardly he was still the son of David. But before God he was no longer accepted. It was a very similar situation to that of Saul and the secret anointing of David (1 Samuel 16).
This sign can be compared to the one given to Moses in Exo 3:12. It was a sign from the future. It was the sign of a future event promised by Yahweh, which while not seen at the time would be a stay for the future. In Moses’ case it was ‘you shall serve/worship God in this mountain’. A distant coming event was promised by Yahweh and was to give him the assurance that he needed, even before it happened, for it had happened in the mind of God, and he could believe. It was a sign to faith. Here similarly was a sign to faith. It was the sign of a future miraculous birth, which was a similar future sign, and could be accepted as a sign by faith because God had promised it.
It should be noted that while to us there is seen to be a considerable time lapse between these words and the coming of the King in Jesus, to both Ahaz, and even Isaiah, that birth was seen as ‘imminent’, as ‘something that could happen at any time’. They had no way of knowing when it would be. Indeed Judah would constantly hope in the future for the birth of a special God-favoured king who would prove to be the coming triumphant one. None could know when it would be, nor possibly indeed would initially necessarily know when it had taken place. It was a promise of the future certain activity of God. And no royal mate would be involved. It was thus a date that could be either near or far, and the birth might be secret or open. All that Isaiah and Ahaz were shown was the fact that it would occur and what its significance would be. That was a sufficient sign to both of Ahaz’s total rejection.
Thus the following description would also have immediate significance as a time indicator for both of them. The child might be born at any time, and yet they can be assured that before it was even possible for such a child to grow up the events described would have taken place. However it should be noted that that is not the stress of the sign. That is an after-result. The sign itself is rather focused on the rejection of Ahaz and on the fact that when the coming king was born he would now be miraculously disassociated from Ahaz.
Excursus on The Virgin Birth.
Here in Isaiah the promise is of an unmarried young woman of marriageable age (‘almah in Hebrew, parthenos in LXX) who will bear a child which will reveal to Israel that ‘God is with us’, and will be a sign to Ahaz that God has rejected him and his house.
The Hebrew word used for young woman (‘almah) is never, as far as is known, used of a non-virgin or married woman. It refers to a young woman of marriageable age, with growing sexual desires, who is not yet married, and is thus assumed to be a virgin. The use of ‘almah in Son 6:8-9 especially confirms this. There it is contrasted with queens and concubines and clearly describes those who are in the same situation as the loved one also being described, unmarried and virginal, and in Isa 7:9 is associated with ‘the daughters’ of their mothers, (they have not yet left their own households), the many compared with the one. It is a word containing the idea of sexual purity, without the taint that had come on the word bethulah. Bethulah was specifically linked with pagan deities of doubtful morality at Ugarit, and could be used to describe fertility goddesses, who were certainly not virgins. It did not strictly mean a pure virgin at this time, whatever it came to mean later. Compare Joe 1:8 where a bethulah mourning the husband of her youth is described where there are no grounds at all for considering that they had only been betrothed.
Some have used Pro 30:19 as an example of ‘almah being used of a non-virgin, when it speaks of ‘the way of a man with a maid’. But there are no real grounds at all for suggesting that that indicates sexual activity. Indeed the opposite is more indicated. Using sexual movements as such an example, as something being watched by others, would with an innocent couple have been heavily frowned on. But we only have to look at what it is being compared with to recognise that it refers to no such thing. Rather it is being paralleled with flight and directional movement which is watched by others. The thought is thus more of a couple on the move in their flirtatious activity, or even of the man’s behaviour of which the young woman is not so much aware, the observers being the amused onlookers as he trails her and tries to be noticed by her. It thus rather supports the use of ‘almah for an unmarried maiden than the opposite.
We can therefore understand why here the LXX translators translated ‘almah by the word ‘virgin’ (parthenos), just as they did in Gen 24:43. They recognised the emphasis that Isaiah was placing on this woman as being unmarried and pure.
It is true that the word ‘virgin’ (parthenos) does not always refer to what is today indicated by the term virgin, an intact virgin who has not had relations with a man, but there is nevertheless always behind it the thought of underlying ‘purity’. The term could, for example, be applied to sacred prostitutes in Greek temples, who were by no means intact virgins. But these were seen as having their own kind of ‘purity’ by those who wrote of them, for they were seen as daughters of the temples and of the gods, not as common prostitutes. They were ‘holy’. On the other hand, they were certainly not technically virgins. Furthermore after Dinah had been raped in Gen 34:2 she was still called a parthenos in Isa 7:3 (LXX). She was seen as pure at heart even though she had been violated and was no longer an intact virgin. And in Isaiah 47 the ‘virgin daughter of Babylon’ could lose her children and be brought to widowhood (Isa 47:1; Isa 47:9). In none of these cases then are parthenoi seen as intact virgins. On the other hand, the idea of purity might be seen as lying behind them all.
Nor did Hebrew at this time have a word for ‘intact virgin’. Virginity was assumed for all unmarried young women, unless there was reason to think otherwise, and then it was a shame to speak of it. The often cited ‘bethulah’ did not indicate that at that time. Nor did it necessarily indicate purity. As we have seen above it was specifically linked with pagan deities of doubtful morality at Ugarit, and could be used to describe fertility goddesses, who were certainly not virgins, or even pure. They were far more lascivious and lustful than human beings. And in Joe 1:8 a bethulah mourning the husband of her youth is described. There are no grounds for thinking that she was a virgin. Indeed if she had had a husband for even one night she would not have been. Furthermore the word bethulah sometimes has to be accompanied by the words, ‘neither had any man known her’ (Gen 24:16; compare also Lev 21:3; Jdg 11:39; Jdg 21:12). That comparison would have been unnecessary if bethulah had specifically indicated a virgin. So a bethulah is a young woman, whether married or not, with no indication of her virginal state. An ‘alma is an unmarried young woman of marriageable age, who if pure (which she would be assumed to be) could in Israel be called a parthenos.
The next thing we note is that this unmarried and pure woman who is to bring forth a child is to be a sign to Ahaz of the rejection of him and his house (demonstrated by the coming of Assyria on them – Isa 7:17), and an indication that he will shortly see that God can do what He says and empty the lands of both his enemies, something which will also be a warning to him, for what can be done to them can be done to him in the same way.
Who then was this son who would act as a sign in this way? A number of suggestions have been made of which we will select the three most prominent.
1) It was a child to be born of the royal house, or of Isaiah’s wife, whose very birth and weaning would act as a sign.
2) It was any child born at the time, the emphasis being on the fact that before it was weaned what God had said would happen.
3) It was the child described in Isa 9:6-7, the coming One Who would be greater than David, Who would be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and would rule over the whole world.
In order to decide which one was meant we must consider the context. In context God had offered to keep Ahaz safe under his protection, and in order to give him assurance in the face of what lay before him, had offered to give him a sign of miraculous proportions (an example of which we find later on when the sun goes back ten degrees under Hezekiah – Isa 38:5-8). God says, ‘Ask a sign of YHWH, whether it be as high as Heaven or as deep as Sheol’ (Isa 7:11). This was an offer which Ahaz suavely rejected, because he preferred to look to the King of Assyria. But this sign once given would have been the sign that Ahaz would be ‘established’. It was thus related not only to the deliverance from the current problem, but also to the guaranteeing of the future establishment of the house of David through the line of Ahaz, protecting him from all comers.
And it is on his refusal to respond to God’s offer that God says that He will nevertheless give him a sign, but that this time it will be a sign, not of God’s help and protection, but of the king of Assyria coming on him, (thus he will not be established). And the sign will be that a child will be born of an ‘almah.
The first thing that must be said about this is that it suggests that God intends to bring before him a sign that will indeed be one of miraculous proportions, ‘as high as Heaven or as deep as Sheol’, in accordance with what He has previously described, even though it is one which will not be of benefit to him at all. For only such a sign could demonstrate the certainty that the future of the house of Ahaz was no longer ensured. And if that was to be so then only a virgin birth would fit the bill. It was the virgin birth of the Coming One that guaranteed that He would not be of Ahaz’ house, and that instead God Himself would have stepped in.
1) The suggestion that it refers to a child to be born of the royal house, or of Isaiah’s wife, whose very birth would act as a sign.
The birth of a son to the royal house in the normal course of events (Hezekiah had already been born) or to the prophetess could hardly have been such a sign as the Lord has described above. For one thing no one would have believed that the child was born of a virgin. And indeed it was not possible to the prophetess who was no longer a virgin. The prophetess bears two sons, both of whom by their names will be signs to Judah/Israel, as would their father (Isa 8:18), but note that while the prophetess was mentioned earlier in respect of one of the sons (Isa 8:3), she is not mentioned in Isa 7:18 where we have the mention of ‘signs and portents’ referring to both sons and their father. There is therefore no emphasis on it being the prophetess who bears both sons who were ‘signs and portents in Israel’ (along with their father) even though she had in fact done so. The emphasis here is on the father.
However, the argument is often that that is the point. The emphasis is in fact on her bearing one of the sons, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isa 8:3), who will be a sign of the devastation of the two kings, something which in Isa 7:16 was to be gathered from the sign of the ‘almah with child. But here we should note that in Isa 8:3 it is not in fact specifically described as a sign. It is rather seen as a prophetic acting out of what is to be, which is not quite the same thing. Of course we may accept that it was an indication of what is to be, and in that sense a sign. But it is equally certainly not the kind of sign that the Lord had originally spoken of, a sign of startling proportions. Nor is it said to relate to the now greater matters that were involved, that Ahaz’s house would no longer be established, and that the king of Assyria was about to descend on him and his land because he had forfeited the Lord’s protection.
We may therefore justifiably see the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz as a partial sign, but not as a great and wonderful sign. The child’s birth, through the name given to him, was indeed a sign that the kings would be destroyed from their lands within a short while, but that was all that he is described as being. But he was not born of an ‘almah, and he is not said to be a sign of the larger matter in hand, the rejection of the house of Ahaz as manifested by the coming of Assyria and devastation of Judah. Nor is he said to be the sign of the coming of a king who would achieve what Ahaz has failed to achieve (Isa 9:7), that is, of the fulfilment of the promises to the house of David. (A fact that will later be made even clearer by the rejection of his son Hezekiah and his seed – Isa 39:5-7). The same problems as these lie with any attempt to relate the birth of the child to the birth of any child in the house of Ahaz. The birth of such a child would hardly rank as an unusual sign, and would be even less significant than that born to the prophetess. The heir, Hezekiah, was already born.
2) The suggestion that it refers to any child born at the time the emphasis being on the fact that before it was weaned what God had said would happen.
This suffers from even more disadvantages than the first, for it does not even have the partial support in context that the first interpretation has when related to the prophetess. It is fine as an evidence of how short a time it will be before both of Ahaz’s opponents are devastated, but it has nothing to say about the non-establishment of the house of Ahaz or of the coming of the king of Assyria, nor could it possibly be seen as in any way parallel with the kind of sign that the Lord had spoken about. For the truth is that if the Lord made His great declaration about ‘a sign almost as beyond the conception of man as it could possibly be’, and then gave one which was merely a birth in the usual run of things, it would appear to all that all that He had offered was a damp squib.
And this is especially so because in the past He had specialised in special births in that a number of past ‘greats’ had been born miraculously (even though not from an ‘almah), and almost with the same words. Thus Isaac was born ‘miraculously’ (Gen 18:10-11; Gen 18:14; Gen 21:2 – ‘conceived and bore a son’), Samson was born ‘miraculously’ (Jdg 13:3 – ‘will conceive and bear a son’), Samuel was born ‘miraculously’ (1Sa 1:5; 1Sa 1:20 – ‘conceived and bore a son’). And all these births would be engraved on Israelite hearts. But there is no suggestion that they were born of ‘almah’s, nor was the child of the prophetess in fact born ‘miraculously’, even though she ‘conceived and bore a son’. Indeed she had already previously had another son. It will be noted that the only exact parallel to ‘ will conceive and bear a son’ in the whole of the Old Testament is Jdg 13:3; Jdg 13:5; Jdg 13:7, and that of a birth that was certainly to be unusual and unexpected, and of one who was to be saviour of his people. Thus these words would raise in the minds of the hearers the expectancy of some quite remarkable birth.
3) The suggestion that it refers to the child described in Isa 9:6-7, the coming One Who would be greater than David, Who would be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and would rule over the whole world, thus indicating that He would be miraculously born of an ‘almah (parthenos, virgin).
There can be no question that this suggestion of the virgin birth of the coming hope of the house of David has the most going for it from an Israelite’s point of view and from the point of view of the context. It would tie in with the past history of conceiving and bearing a ‘miraculous child’ as being signs to Israel. It would tie in with the Lord’s promise that He would give a remarkable miraculous sign. It would tie in with the following description of the ‘birth of a child’ in Isa 9:6. It would give full weight to the use of ‘almah. It would explain why it demonstrated that ‘God is with us’. It would confirm that the hope of the house of David was indeed coming, in spite of present appearances, even though Ahaz’ house would be excluded.
And as no one knew when the child would be born (it could be at any time) the indication that both kings would be devastated before the child could possibly grow to boyhood was a sufficient indicator of time, especially when associated with the actual example of the birth of the son to the prophetess. Indeed the only question that it might raise is, how could such a birth in the future possibly be a sign to Ahaz?
The answer to this question lies in the nature of the sign. It should be noted that this was no longer intended to be a sign to Ahaz that he was to be established (Isa 7:9). But what it certainly was, was a sign of the fact that he would not be established, and while that did not really require a great present miracle at the time then current, God was determined to give him a miraculous sign which would demonstrate the fact in an inescapable way. He lived at a time when all hopes were on the coming of the future triumphant son of David, who would be of the line of David, and who would rule the world. And Ahaz would pride himself in the fact that it would be of his seed. Thus to inform Ahaz that he was now receiving a miraculous sign in the statement by God that ‘the coming David’ would now in fact be born of a virgin, and not be of his seed, was indeed a sign that he would not be established, and was an unwelcome sign indeed. It was an indication that the future throne would go to one not born of Ahaz’s seed. The sign was thus now not a matter of when the child would be born, but of what his birth would signify as regards the hopes for the future. Furthermore we have a good example in the past of precisely such an idea of a sign that was given as a sign to its recipient, with the actual working out of the sign being a future event. For such an example see Exo 3:12. There the sign that Moses had been sent would be the fact that the people to whom he went would one day ‘serve God on this mountain’. The sign was a promise of a better future that had to be believed in, and that they could hold on to, and in which they had to continue to believe. It was a sign of a future which would actually be the result of their response of faith, just as this sign in Isa 7:14 is a similar promise of a better future in which the people are called on to believe, even if Ahaz will not (Isa 7:9).
Strictly speaking in fact Ahaz did not want or merit a sign. He had refused it. He had already made up his mind to look to Assyria. Thus the point here is that he was receiving a spoken sign that he did not want, a sign indicating God’s decree, which demonstrated the very opposite of what the original promised sign would have indicated. It demonstrated his rejection by God. Meanwhile Israel could indeed be confident that one day it would receive its promised king Whose coming would prove that God was with them, but they would now know that He would not be born of the seed of Ahaz, but would rather be born of a virgin. We should also note that while this might cause problems to our scientific age, it would have caused no problems to Israelites. They would not be looking for some interpretation that avoided the ‘miraculous’. They would have seen no difficulty in the Creator bringing about a virgin birth. That is a modern problem.
End of Excursus.
Isa 7:15-17
‘He will eat butter and honey when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, for before the child will know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you hate will be forsaken. Yahweh will bring on you, and on your people, and on your father’s house, days that have not come from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah, even the King of Assyria.’
To ‘eat butter (or curds, thick sour milk) and wild honey’ has been interpreted as meaning either a time of plenty, the food of the gods, or a time when it was necessary to exist on basic things because the land itself was unfruitful. Isa 7:22, however, read in context makes clear that the reference is to the latter. So the coming miracle child will not be born in a time of plenty. His birth will come while the land is under judgment, and He will have to exist on basic foods. The idea of his coming is thus a sign of the hard times ahead. Meanwhile Ahaz can be sure, as God has promised, and will not now renege on, that before there could be time for such a child to grow to maturity the doom of Syria and Israel will have been sealed. But let him not gloat on that fact, for he himself also will in fact find himself no more an independent king but merely a vassal prince, subject to heavy tribute. In contrast to what he could have had from the Lord Yahweh, independence, glory and prestige, the one to whom he has actually chosen to look will demote him to being a mere vassal, a mere servant prince. He will reap what he has sown.
‘When he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good.’ This can mean either when the child is of an age to appreciate the world and make right decisions (2Sa 19:35), or when he comes to moral discernment (Gen 2:17; Gen 3:5; Gen 3:22 see Gen 50:20; Deu 1:39; Deu 30:15). The phrase is used with both meanings, which timewise roughly tie in with each other.
‘The land whose two kings you hate will be forsaken.’ The lands of Syria and Israel will be deserted, the kings will be no more. Possibly it includes the idea that they will also prove to have been forsaken by their gods in whom they trusted.
‘Yahweh will bring on you, and on your people, and on your father’s house, days that have not come from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah, even the King of Assyria.’ Ahaz has chosen the king of Assyria in preference to Yahweh, and so the king of Assyria he shall have, at Yahweh’s hand. Both Ahaz and his people will become subject to them, but worse, the proud, exalted Davidic house, for which God had promised so much, would also be subjected. The house ‘destined to rule the world’ would be the puppet of Assyria. With the faithlessness of Ahaz all the dreams for the house of David had collapsed.
‘From the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.’ Ever since the death of Solomon the kings had been independent. Now it will be so no longer. From now on they will always be subject to another earthly overlord, until the son is born in hard times who is destined to rule the world (Isa 9:6-7).
Note.
Reference will be made in chapter 8 to the birth of a son to the wife of Isaiah. But he is specifically named Maher-shalal-hash-baz (‘haste the spoil, speed the prey’) to indicate the coming judgments of God, and the downfall of Syria and Israel and the desolation of Judah. Nothing could be more in contrast with this promise in Isa 7:14. The child of Isa 7:14 is a child of hope. The prophetess’s child is a child of judgment. Nor was Isaiah’s wife at the time an ‘almah. While therefore it may have been left open to some to see that child as fulfilling the prophecy, if they wished to do so, the child did not really do so. He was named rather in confirmation of the coming judgment already placarded (Isa 8:1-2). He was not ‘Immanuel’, God is with us. Nor was his birth such a remarkable sign as to prove anything. Something greater had certainly to be looked for in order to fulfil Isa 7:14, as the continuing emphasis on Immanuel makes clear (Isa 8:8; Isa 8:10; Isa 9:6).
End of note.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Son of the Virgin Promised
v. 10. Moreover, the Lord, v. 11. Ask thee a sign of the Lord, thy God, v. 12. But Ahaz, v. 13. And he, Isaiah, v. 14. Therefore the Lord Himself, v. 15. Butter, v. 16. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, v. 17. The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah, v. 18. And it shall come to pass in that day, v. 19. And they shall come and shall rest, all of them, in the desolate valleys, v. 20. In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, v. 21. And it shall come to pass in that day that a man shall nourish a young cow and two sheep, v. 22. and it shall come to pass for the abundance of milk that they, v. 23. And it shall come to pass in that day, v. 24. With arrows and with bows shall men come thither, v. 25. And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Isa 7:10-12. Moreover, the Lord spake, &c. From the 10th to the 16th verse, we have the confirmation of the promise, by a sign to Ahaz in the name of God; in which we have, first, the prophet’s address to Ahaz, exhorting him by the divine command to ask whatever sign he would; Isa 7:10-11 with the reply of Ahaz, Isa 7:12. And secondly, a declaration of God’s good pleasure, to give an illustrious sign, which he offers rather to the true believers, than to a hypocritical and incredulous king; Isa 7:13-16. By a sign we are here to understand a miracle, commonly so called, or an unusual or extraordinary effect, production, or phaenomenon, which cannot be explained from natural causes, but only from the omnipotence of the ruler of the universe; which moreover signified that God was present, and ratified the word, promise, or doctrine, for which the sign was given at the petition of some public teacher or other holy man. The prophet offers this sign either in the depth or in the height above; signifying that all nature was subject to the power and controul of that God whom he calls the God of Ahaz, as being the God of his fathers, and in order to admonish him in whom to place his confidence. Ahaz, however, refuses to ask for a sign; not from true faith and humility, but from hypocritical reasons, as is sufficiently evident from the history of his life. See 2 Chronicles 28 throughout. He feared lest, if such a sign should be given as he did not choose, he should be compelled to desist from his purpose, the calling in the aid of Assyria, and which he could not well do after Jehovah had given a sign to the contrary. Besides, as he seems to have been deserted by God, he dared not commit himself to that divine favour and providence which he had heretofore so proudly despised; preferring to it the protection of other and false deities. See Vitringa.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
b) Isaiah in the bosom of the royal family giving a sign by announcing the Virgins Son Immanuel
Isa 7:10-25
1040 Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God;
41Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
12But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord; 13And he said,
Hear ye now, O house of David;
Is it a small thing for you to weary men,
But will ye weary my God also?
14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin 42shall conceive, and bear a son,
And 43shall call his name Immanuel.
15Butter and honey shall he eat,
That he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16For before the child shall know
To refuse the evil, and choose the good,
The land that thou abhorrest
Shall be forsaken of both her kings.44
17The Lord shall bring upon thee,
And upon thy people, and upon thy fathers house,
Days that have not come,
From the day that Ephraim departed from Judah;
Even the king of Assyria.
18And it shall come to pass in that day,
That the Lord shall hiss
For the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt,
And for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.
19And they shall come, and shall rest all of them
In the 45desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks,
And upon all thorns, and upon all 4647bushes.
20In the same day shall the Lord shave 48with a razor that is hired,
Namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria,
The head, and the hair of the feet:
And it shall also consume the beard.
21And it shall come to pass in that day,
That a man shall 49nourish a young cow, and two sheep;
22And it shall come to pass,
For the abundance of milk that 50they shall give he shall eat butter:
For butter and honey shall every one eat
That is left 51in the land.
23And it shall come to pass in that day,
That every place 52shall be,
Where then were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings,
It shall even be for briers and thorns.
24With arrows and with bows shall men come thither;
Because all the land shall become briars and thorns.
25And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock,
Then shall not come thither 53the fear of briers and thorns:
But it shall be for the sending forth of oxen,
And for the treading of lesser cattle.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
On Isa 7:10. occurs again in Isaiah only Isa 8:5.
On Isa 7:11. The words admit of several explanations. But that must be excluded at once which reading (with the tone on the ultima) takes the word as substantive. For request is , and there is no reason for assuming that the Masorets punctuated falsely. The explanation is very old that takes as a pausal form for (Gen 37:35; Gen 42:38; Gen 44:29; Gen 44:31; Num 16:30; Num 16:33; Eze 31:15 sqq.). The LXX. Vulg., Pesch., Arab, have it, and it commends itself in point of sense very much. For when it says. Descending deep into hell, or mounting up to the height, both members correspond admirably both in respect to sense and to sound. But this construction is dubious. For the examples cited by Ewald 93, a, 3, rest all of them on this, that an existing or possible form with a may be chosen in pause for the form with o in accordance with the law of variation. For there is no such thing as an o changed into a in pause. We must therefore take as imperative (comp. Isa 32:11; Dan 9:19; 1Ki 13:7. Then (Isa 29:15; Isa 30:33; Isa 31:6) (Psa 113:5) are inffabs. with a gerund sense: going deep ask or mounting up high.
On Isa 7:12. a paratactic construction.
On Isa 7:13. The construction means originally is it from you out (from your point of view) a little? The has a causal sense: because ye insult my God. One sees that to insult men is a small matter, an unsatisfying indulgence to your haughtiness. Comp. Num 16:9; Job 15:11; Eze 34:18.
On Isa 7:14. Regarding it may be considered settled that directly and properly it can never signify a married woman. It may, perchance, be used of a young married woman, whose youth or youthful looks one would especially emphasize, like Ruth (Isa 2:5-6) as a young wife is called . But in point of fact no such form of expression occurs in the Old Testament. On the other hand a virgin, as such, (as virgo illibata) is never called . For the proper term for virgin is (Gen 24:16; Lev 21:3; Lev 21:13-14; Deu 22:14; Deu 22:19-20; Jdg 19:24; 2Sa 13:2; 2Sa 13:18) and virginity is (Deu 22:15; Deu 22:17; Jdg 11:37 sq.; Eze 23:3; Eze 23:8). is fem. of (1Sa 17:56; 1Sa 20:22) and has nothing to do with to conceal. , however, is from a root , kindred to (trans. sugere, potare, intr. redundare, succulentum, vegetum esse). The latter occurs in Hebrew only in the words , , (tas juvenilis of women Isa 54:4, of men Psa 89:46; Job 20:11; Job 33:25) more common in the dialects, where it has the meaning of becoming fat, thick, strong, mature, manly. occurs (not to count the musical term Psa 46:1; 1Ch 15:20) six times: Gen 24:43; Exo 2:8; Pro 30:19; Psa 68:26; Son 1:3; Son 6:8. In none of these passages can it be proved to have the sense of virgo illibata or conjux. Especially from Song of Sol. it appears that the third class of the occupants of Solomons harem comprised the . Was virginity characteristic of them? Pro 30:19 is difficult. According to all the foregoing it seems to me certain that every is indeed a , but not every a . As is the time of youth generally, and may be used of men as well as of women, ( could not be said of men) then is the young woman, still fresh, young and unmarried, without regard to whether still a virgin in the exact sense. , that these words may be read: behold, the virgin is pregnant, is owned by every one. The expression occurs twice beside. Gen 16:11 the angel says to Hagar, who was already pregnant: . This passage has, moreover, so much resemblance to ours that we must suppose that it was in the Prophets mind. Jdg 13:5; Jdg 13:7, it is at least very probable, considering Isa 7:12, that the wife of Manoah was already pregnant. The form in the original passage, Gen 16:16, Isaiah 2 pers. fem. In our passage it may also be 3 pers. fem. For this form is still to be found Gen 33:11; Exo 5:16 (?); Lev 25:21; Lev 26:34; Deu 31:29; Jer 13:19; Jer 44:23; 2Ki 9:37 (Kthib); Psa 118:23. It is seen that the form occurs most frequently in the Pentateuch, while Jer 44:23 is a verbatim quotation from Deu 31:29; and 2Ki 9:37, there exists likely an error of the pen, thus leaving only two instances not in the Pentateuch beside our verse. The form occurs nowhere else in Isaiah.
On Isa 7:15. That is not: until his knowing, appears from this, that, the Prophet would in that case say that from his birth on to the years of discretion the boy would be nourished with butter and honey, and then no longer. Thereby, too, the prospect of a brief period of desolation for the land would be held out, which plainly is not the meaning of the Prophet. For Isaiah had in mind the periods of exile, both the Assyrian and the Babylonian, and neither comprises in itself and in the Prophets representation so short a period. That the latter is so is seen in the way he expresses himself (Isa 7:17 sq.) on the occasion and extent of the desolation. Therefore means: to the time of his knowing; or about the time. Comp. , ,, Psa 30:6 : Job 24:14; Gen 3:8; Gen 8:14; Gen 49:27, etc. is thick milk, lac spissum, (comp. Gen 18:8; Jdg 5:25; Pro 30:33).
On Isa 7:16. That the Prophet says and not , has for its reason doubtless that he would designate Syria and the territory of the Ten Tribes by one word. But the two together did not constitute an , but a land complex in a physical sense.On comp. at Isa 7:6.
On Isa 7:17. The form of expression is like Exo 10:6; Exo 34:10; Dan 9:12. The construction is like Jer 7:7; Jer 7:25; Jer 25:11. All that follows depends as one notion on the distributive . Without Exo 10:6.
On Isa 7:18. , this formula occurs Isa 7:21; Isa 7:23; Isa 10:20; Isa 10:27; Isa 11:10; Isa 11:1; Isa 17:4; Isa 22:20; Isa 23:15; Isa 24:21; Isa 27:13, and not again. In this formula does not designate only a day in the ordinary sense, but, according to circumstances, an undetermined period, like we use the word period. only here in Isaiah. is an Egyptian word (comp. on Isa 19:6) which, however, has become naturalized in Hebrew. It is partly appellative, and as such means ditches (Exo 8:1; Isa 33:21) and rivers (Nah 3:8; Dan 12:5); partly a proper name, and as such means the Nile (Isa 19:7-8; Isa 23:10). The (comp. Isa 19:6; Isa 37:25; 2Ki 19:24) are the canals of the Nile (Exo 8:1).
On Isa 7:19. is . . If it is kindred to (Isa 5:6) which is most probable, it means abscissum praeruptum, the steep side of a wady. (found beside only Jer 13:4; Jer 16:16) is, as appears plain from Jer 13:4, the cleft. (again only Isa 55:13) is the thornbush; (from Exo 15:13; Isa 40:11; Isa 49:10; Isa 51:18, to lead to pasture) pascuum, the pasture, grazing ground.
On Isa 7:20. and only here in Isaiah. subs. abstractum (conductio), but may be also fem. of (conductus, hired) occurs nowhere else. This razor is to be had without article, like Mic 7:12, and Jer 2:18 (which passage, more over, looks back to ours), is the Euphrates. The are the two sides of the Euphrates; for alone may mean the territory on the hither side as well as the further side (comp. Jos 24:2-3; Jos 24:14-15; 2Sa 10:16; 1Ch 19:16, with 2Ki 5:4; Ezr 8:36; Neh 2:7; Neh 2:9; Neh 3:7), and are the sides generally: Exo 32:15; 1Ki 5:4; Jer. 58:28; 49:32. is euphemistic, like Deu 28:57; Isa 36:12 Kri. Comp. Jdg 3:24; 1Sa 24:4. proves that the Prophet uses as fem., which usually is masc. Thereby the adjective construction of is confirmed as the correct one. Regarding the usus loquendi, comp. Isa 13:15; Isa 29:1; Isa 30:1.
On Isa 7:21. , because female sheep, yielding milk are meant. He does not kill them, but lets them live, raises them. is to make live. This does not occur only when something dead, or non-existent, is called into life: but also when something living, but on the point of dying, is let live; therefore preserves alive. Comp. Isa 38:1; Gen 7:3; 2Sa 12:3; 1Ki 18:5, etc.
On Isa 7:23. On see on Isa 5:6.
On Isa 7:25. Both the verb and the substantive occur only in Isaiah, viz., here and Isa 5:6. is a place where cattle are allowed to roam free (comp. Isa 32:20). The expression belongs to Deuteronomy, where only, except here, it is found; Deut. 12:7; 15:10; 13:21; 28:8, 20. see on Isa 5:5.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. Moreover the Lordtempt the Lord, Isa 7:10-12. When Isaiah says: Moreover the Lord spake, he puts himself quite in the background. He gives prominence only to the proper author of the address, as Isa 7:3, he reports only the words of Jehovah to himself, and passes over the performance that was his, a mans work, as a matter of course. Though Ahaz was a backslider, the divine love on its part does not let him go. The Lord says still to him: I am thy God. De jure. He is so, though de facto so no longer. Because Jehovah still loves Ahaz, He seeks to reclaim him, coming to him half way, and holding out His hand in order to make return as easy for him as possible. That is, the Lord demands no unconditional faith from Ahaz, but He permits him to attach his faith to any condition that he will. If Jehovah fulfils the condition, then that is security, or the sign, that Jehovah deserves to be believed, that He is therefore the God He gives Himself out to be.
There is no other instance of submitting to a mans choice what the sign shall be. It may be fearlessly said that for Isaiah to propose to Ahaz the choice of a miraculous sign is itself a sign. It is a pledge that he serves the true, living, and almighty God; that therefore there is such a God, who not only can do miracles, but who, under circumstances, will do them. Had Isaiah offered Ahaz this choice without possessing the power to perform what he promised, he would have been either a deceiver or a crazed enthusiast. In the name of science, rationalistic expositors may be challenged to prove that Isaiah was a deceiver or an enthusiast. In any case the Prophet leaves it to Ahaz, from what part of the universe he will have a miracle.
The reply of Ahaz is hypocritical. He acts as if he still believed in Jehovah, and as if he declined the proposal only through fear, lest he should have the appearance of tempting God (Deu 5:16). But he had already his own plans. He had already resolved to oppose to the gods and kings of Syria and Ephraim, not Jehovah, the God of Judah, but the gods and the king of Assyria.
[Isa 7:11. Ask it in the depth, etc. There may be an historical relation between this expression and Deu 30:11-14, and Joh 4:11-13, and Rom 10:6-8, and comp. Psa 139:6-10, that makes them useful for mutual interpretation. , Rom 10:7, seems to show that Paul combines the language of Deuteronomy and Isaiah, and also to favor the LXX. and Vulg. in reading our passage as if were meant.Tr.].
2. And he saidImmanuel, Isa 7:13-14. It seems to me that this form of address, joined to the moreover the Lord spake, Isa 7:10, intimates that the Prophet spoke these words, not on the spot mentioned Isa 7:3, but in the house of David, i. e., in the royal palace, and before the royal family, and that the contents of his address concerned very nearly the house of David as a family, (not merely as representative of the government). , to weary, corresponds exactly to the French ennuyer, which means primarily the discomfort one experiences from anything that lasts too long, and then any sort of discomfort. Without doubt Ahaz had often enough made trial of human patience. But to weary men seems to point to the fact that in Ahazs refusal lay an insult to the Prophet. For this refusal might be regarded as indirectly repelling an insane presumption on the part of Isaiah. Still, doubtless, the insult to his God is the chief matter to the Prophet. Notice that by my God here, he in a measure retracts the thy God of Isa 7:10. By this one word he lets Ahaz know that by his unbelief he has excluded himself from a part in the Lord. Full of this displeasure, the Prophet declares to the house of David: Because ye will have no sign, one shall be given to you. The sign must therefore be one that Ahaz could observe, and every meaning that ignores this, must from the outstart be regarded as mistaken. It is further clear that the sign which Ahaz must accept against his will must be of a character unpleasant to him. The whole connection shows this clearly. The unbelief, the desertion, the hypocrisy of Ahaz must be punished. Had he accepted the offer of the Lord, he might at will have chosen a sign from any sphere. But because he insolently declined the offer, he must put up with a sign that will appear in a very delicate quarter, and consist in a fact very unpleasant for him. Consider in addition that the Prophet, as we learned above, spoke these words in the royal palace, and before the royal family, and we obtain an important threefold canon for the exposition of the passage: the sign must have been for Ahaz, 1) recognized; 2) unpleasant, punishing; 3) of concern to his whole family.
Behold the virgin,etc.Behold has great emphasis. It stands here as if the Prophet raised his hand, signed to all the world that they should be still and give heed to this the chiefest miracle of which he would now preach. (Foerster).On see Text. and Gr. Who is the virgin here? To whom does the definite article point? We must at the outset exclude all those exposisions according to which the Alma = virgin is a purely ideal person, whether belonging to the present or the future. What sort of a sign for Ahaz could it be, if the Prophet in spirit saw in the remote future a virgin that bore the Messiah; even if, by means of an ideal anticipation, the wonderful child, which formed, as it were, the soul of the peoples life, is construed as representative of the contemporaries of Ahaz (Hengstenberg)? It is no better when, by a figurative construction the Alma is made to mean Israel, out of which a people of salvation shall arise, which, after it has endured the consequences of the present ignorance, shall know to prefer the good to the bad (v. Hofmann). It is the same with the explanation of W. SchultzProf, in Breslau, Stud. and Krit., 1861, Heft. IV.) who by comprehending under the Alma or virgin the Messiah and His mother, and all their typical forerunners, understands by this person the quiet ones of the land, who needed not the king nor his co-operation. The canon we have set up as imperative, is equally violated by Kueper (Die Proph. d. A. B. bersichtle dargestellt, Leipzig, 1870, p. 216): he admits that Alma does not necessarily mean a pure virgin, yet he lays especial emphasis on the virginity of the mother, because it may be inferred from the name Immanuel, which proves the piety of the mother; and he sees precisely in this virginity the threat against Ahaz, because it follows that Immanuel is to be born without co-operation of a man of the race of David. For it is impossible that Ahaz could infer this virginity thus from the words of the Prophet. Beside, there is nothing threatening in the promise that the Messiah shall be born as the Son of God in the sense of Luk 1:35, without co-operation of a man, of the race of David; it is rather the highest honor. The latest attempt at exposition, too, by Ed. Engelhardt (Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. and K. 1872 Heft. IV.), does not satisfy. The house of David cannot be destroyed before the promised deliver comes forth from it. The mother is therefore, yet to appear that bears Him, and this mother, determined by the word of the Prophecy, it is that the Prophet means here (l. c. page 627). How is it to be proved that was a standing expression for the mother of the Messiah? What, moreover, was there punitive in this? What in the text says that the house of David would be destroyed after the birth of the Messiahs mother? Moreover, how is this conceivable? To express what Engelhardt fancies is the meaning of the Prophet, the words must read: the Alma has not yet borne. What sort of a sign, would that be?
Others adopt an ideal construction in the sense that they regard the birth of a son from the Alma, at the time indicated, as an idea, a possibility, without reference to its realization (were a virgin to conceive this instant a boy as an emblem of his native land, the mother would name her babe like the land at that time must say: God was with us, Eichhorn, comp. J. D. Michaelis, Paulus, Staehelin,etc.). The arbitrariness of this exposition is manifest; the Prophet does not speak hypothetically, but quite categorically. This sign, too, would be neither observable, nor threatening.
Others find the key to the exposition (Rosenmueller, Ewald, Bertheau), in the supposition that Isaiah saw the Messiah Himself in the child to be born, and that consequently we have before us, an erroneous hope and an unfulfilled Prophecy. But it is incredible that the Prophet, accompanied as he was by his son Shearjashub, could have expected in so short a period the fulfilment of the Prophecy contained in his name. The people must first become a remnant. Comp., the Prophets inquiry Isa 6:10 and the reply Isa 7:11. If the Alma does call her son Immanuel, he is not necessarily therefore really Immanuel. It may mean only that he signifies the Immanuel. And so, too, Isa 8:8, the land of Immanuel is not the land of the present, but of the future Immanuel, who only is the true Lord and Master of the land. In Isa 8:10 where is written separately as two words, can at most only a play on the name Immanuel be recognized. Moreover if Isaiah saw in the boy Immanuel the Messiah himself, then must certainly his mother be the legitimate wife of a member of the family of David. But it is incredible that alone without any qualification, can mean married women.
The ancient Jewish explanation, according to which the Alma was the mother of Hezekiah, that Abi. daughter of Zachariah (2Ki 18:2), was shown by Jerome even to be impossible, inasmuch as Hezekiah at the time Isaiah spoke these words was already 12 years old. The later Jewish explanation ranks among its supporters Faustus Socinus, Joh. Crellius, (Socinian), Grotius, (who in his Dever. religionis Christ. still presented the orthodox view, but afterwards went over to Crellius views), Joh. Ludwig Von Wolzogen (Socinian), John Ernst. Faber (in the Anm. zu Harmars Beobachtungen ber den Orient, etc., I. S. 281), [Put Dr. Barnes here: only that he includes a reference to Messiah, according to Mat 1:22.Tr.] Gesenius, Hitzig, Heudewerk, Knobel,etc. According to this view the Alma is the wife of the Prophet himself, either the mother of Shear-jashub, or a younger one, at that time only betrothed to him. But this is wrecked on the impossibility of referring to the wife or the betrothed of the Prophet without any nearer designation and without the faintest hint of her being present. Beside, how should the family of the Prophet happen to have the Immanuel born in it? Were the promises to David to be transferred to Isaiah? Kimchi and Abarbanel modify this view by saying that by the Alma must be understood the wife of Ahaz. But then, instead of something bad, the Prophet would rather have announced something joyful. Others again understand by the Alma any virgin, not more particularly specified, that was present at the place of interview, and to whom the Prophet pointed with the finger.
For my part I believe, that in expounding our passage, it is an exegetes duty to leave out of view at first Mat 1:23. We have only to ask: What, according to the words and context, did Isaiah in that moment wish to say, and actually say? How far his word spoken then was a prophecy, and with what justice Mat 1:18 regards the fact recounted there as the fulfilment of this prophecy will appear from inquiry that must be made afterwards. Bearing in mind then the canon proposed above, and we obtain the meaning: Behold the (i. e. this) virgin (i. e. this yet unmarried daughter of the royal house) is pregnant, etc. After the indignant words of the Prophet, Isa 7:14 a, that roll up like dark clouds, we must look for a sign that strikes the house of David like thunder and lightning. Doubtless Ahaz was not the only guilty person. While Joshua (Jos 24:15) had said: I and my house will serve the Lord, Ahaz had said the contrary. If not, why did the Prophet, instead of addressing himself to the king with such emphasis, address the whole house? And did what was said Isa 3:16 sq. about the luxury of the daughters of Zion have no application to the women in the household of Ahaz? Therefore the whole house must with terror endure the shame of one of the princesses who was present being pointed out as pregnant. That is the bold manner of the prophets of Jehovaha manner that is no respecter of personsthe sackcloth roughness of men that know that they have Almighty God for their support. Thus, for example, Jeremiah said to king Jehoiakim that he should be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem, Jer 22:19.
As regards the sense, it remains essentially the game whether is translated thou wilt call or she will call. For in any case the word is spoken in presence of the Alma. She herself takes note of what the Prophet announces in regard to the name to be given. Whether she is spoken to or spoken of, remains immaterial. If God, with no expression of disapproval, says she will call him Immanuel, is not that as much as to say: she shall so call him? She would hardly have thought of that name herself. It was not a usual name. It is found only here in the Old Testament. It was a beautiful name, rich in consolation. The Lord would have spoken quite differently if the name had given Him displeasure. That such was not the case, we see from Isa 8:8; Isa 8:10 very decidedly. If often occurs in Scripture that mothers give names to their children: Gen 4:25; Gen 19:37 sq.; Gen 29:32; Gen 30:6; Gen 30:8; Gen 30:11; Gen 30:13; Gen 30:18; Gen 30:20; Gen 30:24; Gen 35:18; 1Sa 1:20. Often the name is determined by divine command: Gen 16:11; Gen 17:19; Hos 1:4; Hos 1:6; Hos 1:9; 1Ch 22:9; Mat 1:21. Here, now, grave doubts arise. Is it conceivable that God has made a fallen woman the type of the , and an illegitimate child the type of the Son of God become man? The objections to our view, founded on the piety of the Alma (see above), disappear when we refer back the giving of the name to the announcement of the divine will. For if the Alma does not name the child Immanuel self-prompted, she gives no proof of fearing God and faith in God. She did only what she could not have omitted to do without defying the divine will. But how is it conceivable that God should make such a child the bearer and symbol of His holy purpose of salvation, a child to which clung the reproach of illegitimate birth, that was therefore the fruit and the continual monument of sin, whose mother, in fact, in some circumstances, might have incurred the penalty of stoning, according to Deu 22:21? How can this fruit of sin bear the holy name of Immanuel? Does this not involve the dangerous inference that God does not take strict account of sin? that in some cases He does not mind using it as means and instrument for His plans? To this I would reply as follows. The Prophet is extremely sparing in portraying the historical background of his prophecies. He indicates only what is indispensable. It is just this scantiness that makes our passage so difficult, and all efforts at expounding it suffer alike from this. For there is not a single one against which it may not be objected that one explanatory statement or other is necessary to its complete establishment. It seems to me that the presence of the article in the Alma is easiest explained if, in the circle to which the Prophet addressed, there was only one person present that could be designated as Alma. In every language in such a case a more exact pronominal definition may be dispensed with. Besides, in Hebrew, the article in some cases has decidedly a demonstrative meaning, and can be used (comp. , , ,).
The Prophet, as the servant of Jehovah, might come to the king unannounced. Though hated by the king, the king still dreaded him, and, according to Isa 7:12, Ahaz did not venture to express his unbelief openly, but only under the mask of reverence. Assuredly Nathan did not first request an audience and permission to deliver a message of Jehovahs to the king (2Sa 24:11 sq.). And thus we may assume that the Prophet came to the palace at a time when the king was not surrounded by officers of stateat least not by these alone, but also by his family. And in the circle into which Isaiah stepped in the discharge of his prophetic disciplinary office there must have been onebut only onedaughter of the royal house who was indeed unmarried, but no longer a virgin. More than this we do not know. The Prophet writes no more than he said, perhaps out of compassion, or perhaps to avoid making the person in question the object of honors she did not deserve (possibly of idolatrous worship in after days). By revealing this secret to the dismay of the family, the Prophet had of course given a sign, a pledge of the credibility of what was promised Isa 7:7. For whoever knew that secret of the past and present could know also the secret things of the future. And the king could at once ascertain the verity of the sign that was given. Of course he might take measures to defeat the prophecy and render its accomplishment impossible. But what good would that do? The chief thing, that there was a boy in the body of the (supposed) virgin, he could not undo, and this boy was called, and was de jure, and indeed de jure divino, Immanuel, even though the king (or his mother) gave him no name at all, or another name. [See addenda of Tr. pp. 127, 128.]
But how shall we account for so unholy a transaction being made the type of the holiest transaction of history? Here we must consider the relation of our passage to Mat 1:23. The sacred history narrates that Mary, before Joseph took her home, was found with child, and that Joseph had resolved not to denounce her, but to leave her privately (Mat 1:18 sq.). Ought it to surprise us if this part of the history of the fulfilment should be prefigured, too, in the period of the prophecy? But why just so and then? If that event, that the mother of the Lord was to be found pregnant before marriage, was to be prefigured, could it be done otherwise than that there should happen to a virgin in a natural way and in sinful fashion what happened to Mary in a supernatural way and without sin? Sinful generation occurs in the list of the ancestors of Jesus more than once. Compare only the genealogy in Matthew that calls especial attention to these cases by naming the mother concerned. Remember Judah and Tamar. And not to mention Rahab and Ruth, there is Solomon, born of David and the wife of Uriah. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me, Psa 51:7, applies to the whole genealogy, and, apart from the birth, we must apply to every individual of it the words: there is none that doeth good, no, not one (Psa 14:3; Rom 3:10 sq.). Let one call to mind the sins of Jacob, a David, a Solomon, and one must say it depends on circumstances which was the more unworthy vessel, they or this unfortunate virgin. In short, we here stumble on secrets of divine sovereignty that we cannot fathom. The day shall declare it (1Co 3:13).
Moreover Immanuel is only a transitory apparition. He is named only here and chap. 8. It is a single though significant point, that is visible above the horizon once and then disappears again. Therefore it is also to be noted that spite of Mat 1:23, and that the words of the angel Luk 1:31 remind us of our text and of Gen 16:11, Mary still did not receive command to call her son Immauel. Had our passage the significance that is attributed to it; were it a direct prophecy of the birth of Jesus from a virgin, then properly the name that the son of Mary was to bear was already settled, and one cant comprehend why the angel (Luk 1:31) gives another name. But Immanuel is not Himself and immediately Jesus. He is only a type, like many others. And, indeed, as a son of a virgin, He is a type of that reproach of antenuptial conception which the Saviour of the world had to bear as a part of the general reproach that was meted out to Him, and which He has now-a-days to bear still. This is a point that prophecy might not pass in silence, and yet could touch only lightly.
But by his name he points to the faithfulness of God that will not forsake His people, even when they have become a , and have signalized their desertion of Him by the alliance with the secular power. And this faithfulness is itself a pledge in turn of that which had determined on the most glorious visitation of the people (Luk 1:78) in the person of the God-man, precisely for that time when the nation would lose the last remnant of its independence in the embrace of the secular powder. All the features must not be pressed; which is the case with Isa 7:15 sqq. especially. The prophetic word hovers freely over present and future, combining both, yet leaving both their peculiarities. It was Gods providence that Isaiah should select these words that at the same time fitted so wonderfully the event narrated Mat 1:18 sqq., to whom the tongue of an Isaiah was just as subservient as that of a Caiaphas (Joh 11:51).
3. Butter and honeythe King of Assyria.
Isa 7:15-17. Butter and honey is by no means a mean food. That appears from Deu 32:13-14; Job 20:17, where the words rather mean a very noble food. Comp. 2Sa 17:29. Nor do they appear in any passage of the Old Testament, as childrens food. Rather from Isa 7:21 sqq. it appears that butter and honey represent natural food in contrast with that procured by art. For butter comes immediately from milk, and honey, too, may be had ready from bees in a form that men can enjoy. And as Palestine had and still has many wild bees, on account of which it is called a land flowing with milk and honey (comp. Exo 3:8; Exo 3:17, sqq. and the characteristic passage 1Sa 14:25 sqq.; Jdg 14:8), therefore we may suppose that wild honey (Mat 3:4) is especially meant here. Therefore the boy shall eat butter and honey on to the time when he shall know evil and good (anni discretionis). If the ability to distinguish good and evil is employed as marking a period of time, it can only be in a moral sense. For even the smallest child distinguishes in a physical sense what tastes bad and what good. Moreover the expression reminds one of Gen 2:9; Gen 2:17; Gen 3:5; Gen 3:22; comp. Deu 1:39. Naturally the land must be deserted before the boy knows how to distinguish between good and evil, in order that at the time when this happens, his food may be reduced to butter and honey.
The two kings of the land are Rezin and Pekah. It may be seen from Isa 7:2 how great was the dread of these
experienced by Ahaz.
The Lord shall bring,etc.It is to be noticed here, first of all, that the Prophet adds these words roughly and directly, without any particle connecting them with what goes before. This mode of expression is explained by the fact that the Prophet contemplates the transactions of Isa 7:17 as immediately behind those of Isa 7:16. From his point of view he sees no interval between them. That is not the same as saying that there is no interval between. Prophecy sees all as if in one plane, that in the fulfilment is drawn apart in successive planes. Hence one may say: Isaiah prophesies here the Assyrian and Babylonish exile. For the desolation that (Isa 7:16) is to befall Ephraim happened by the carrying away of the Ten Tribes (comp. 2Ki 17:6; 2Ki 17:23 sqq.). But what the Prophet predicts Isa 7:17 sqq. was fulfilled by the captivity of Judah more than 120 years later. Accordingly, the relation of the prophecy to the fulfilment takes the following shape. Our prophecy must have happened in the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, consequently about the year B. C. 743. The first devastation and partial desolation of the territory of Ephraim by the Assyrians, i. e., by Tiglath-Pileser, happened already in the time of Pekah (2Ki 15:29), who died B. C. 739. The boy, that was to be born according to Isa 7:14, in fact did not live to see any period of the desolation of his native land, nor did he use butter and honey in the manner designated. This form of expression is traceable solely to contemplation of events together that in reality are far apart. For Judah succumbed to such a devastation not till 130 years later. But if we may assume that a child awakes. to moral consciousness in its third or fourth year, and is consequently to be regarded as a personality, capable of distinguishing between good and evil, then that child was alive to see the first inroad of the Assyrians into the territory of Ephraim (and Syria according to 2Ki 16:9) and consequently the beginning of the fulfilment of our prophecy. But did it live to see the beginning, then the Prophet might regard it as one that had lived through the entire fulfilment, because, as remarked before, he does not distinguish successive plains of fulfilment. And he has good reason for this. For as all consequences are contained in the principle, so in the first-fruits of fulfilment are contained the rest of the degrees of fulfilment. For him, who has an eye open to divine realities, all these degrees are ideally contained, but just on that account divinely and really contained in the degree that is the first-fruits. For divine ideas bear the pledge of their reality in themselves. Therefore where a complex of divine ideas is realized even in its beginnings, there the whole is become real for Him who contemplates things with an eye divinely illuminated. Thus Jeremiah regards the world-dominion of Nebuchadnezzar, the subjection of all nations under his power, and the seventy years of Judahs exile as realized practically by the battle at Carchemish, although, to human eyes, Nebuchadnezzar during several years did nothing to extend his kingdom on one side or other. Comp. my remarks on Jer 25:11. So, too, the Lord says Mat 24:34; Luk 21:32, This generation shall not pass away till all this be fulfilled. He could, with entire justice, say that the generation then living would live to see the last judgment because they would witness the beginning of it, the destruction of Jerusalem. Comp. Van Oosterzee on Luk 21:32.
It is seen from the foregoing that, regarding the passage in the light of its fulfilment, we understand the king of Assyria Isa 7:17, to include the king of Babylon. But Isaiah could speak here only of the king of Assyria. For in the foreground of his tableau of the future he saw only the king of Assyria. He did not know, or did not need to intimate that the king of Babylon stood behind the former as continuer and accomplisher. The Assyrian king, this would-be-helper and protector, for whose sake Ahaz has so impiously contemned the support of Jehovah (see on Isa 7:12), just he must be designated as the instrument of the judgment that was to burst in on unbelieving Judah and its equally unbelieving royal house. Thus it appears how impossible it is to treat the words the king of Assyria as a gloss, like Knobel and Diestel do. If the words were not there, there would be no hint as to who was to be the instrument of the judgment predicted Isa 7:16-17. The words connect very well with days in apposition as being explanatoryfor it is just as easy to say bring days on a people as bring a king upon any one.
4. And it shall come to passtreading lesser cattle.
Isa 7:18-25. These verses connect very closely with Isa 7:17, as its amplification. This happens as follows: that in a section underlying which is a duality, there is described first, the means and instruments of the desolation, second the consequences of the desolation. The means and instruments are characterized in a two fold image. First, the destroyer is compared to flies and bees, second, to a razor. The flies mean Egypt, the bees Assyria. But both images merge into one, into that of the razor, and Assyria appears as the razor, by which we are to understand not Assyria alone, but also Babylon. The consequences of the desolation, again, are portrayed under a double figure, or rather by the presentation of two examples. The first example: a man has nothing of his cattle left but a little cow (young cow). But he feeds on thick milk, for, in consequence of the superabundance of food for stock, the remnant of the inhabitants will feed on butter and honey. The second example is itself again divided in two: a.) a vineyard once well cultivated, planted with noble vines, is so over-grown with thorns and thistles, that no one ventures into it without bow and arrow; b.) all the once cultivated heights are so overgrown with thorns and thistles, that they are only fit for the pasture of cattle.
Will hiss,etc.Jehovahs might and sovereignty will reveal itself here in the most glorious manner. He only needs to whistle (comp. on Isa 5:26; Zec 10:8), and the flies of Egypt and the bees of Assyria come obedient to His call. That Egypt was a land abounding in flies may be supposed from the warmth of its climate and the frequent overflows with their slimy sediment. Comp. Exo 8:12 sqq. If the flies at the extreme ends of the canals (see crit. note on ) are called, those that are nearer would not stay away. The expression then means that all the Egyptian flies, even the farthest off, shall come on.The Assyrians are compared to the bee as noble, martial, strong, dangerous. Assyria had many bees. Comp. Knobelin loc. Therefore the entire land, to the steep, rocky ravines and cliffs of the brooks, and to the prickly thorn hedges and the trampled cattle pastures will be covered ( comp. a Isa 7:2) with the swarms of flies and bees. Thus, extensively and intensively, an entire devastation of the land is predicted. The same appears by the second figure Isa 7:20. Ahaz, at a great price, had hired the Assyrian king as an ally against Syria and Ephraim. For this purpose he had not only sacrificed great treasures but also the independence of his land. For he had caused it to be said to Tiglath-Pileser: I am thy servant and thy son, come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria and out of the hand of the king of Israel. 2Ki 16:7. For this purpose he sent the Assyrian the gold and silver that was in the house of Jehovah and in the house of the king. The definite article in , the hired razor, was both historically justified and comprehensible to Ahaz, who must have felt the reproach that lay in the expression. Thou hast hired a razor to shave others, says Isaiah to him, but this razor will shave thee. In Lev 14:8 sq. the shaving off all the hair on the body is prescribed as a part of the purification to be observed by one recovered from leprosy. Perhaps the Prophet would intimate that this devastation was also an act of purification, by which the nation was to be purified from the leprosy of sin, that therefore the punishment is intended for the improvement of those that would accept the chastisement (Pro 8:10; Pro 19:20). The shaving bald evidently signifies the entire devastation and emptying of the land in every quarter and with regard to men, cattle and every other possession.
In Isa 7:21-25, the degree and extent of the devastation is portrayed by two illustrative figures. The first example shows that instead of skilful cultivation, the grass shall grow rank. A man rescues from his stock a heifer, the Prophet supposes, (comp. Isa 15:5; Jer 48:34; Deu 21:3; 1Sa 16:2) and two sheep. Because there is no regular cultivation, grass grows in every field. Therefore there is abundant pasture for the few cattle. Beside, the wild bees produce honey in abundance. Thus honey and butter are the food of that man and of all the remnant of the inhabitants still in the land. The second example presents a still greater degree of uncultivated wildness; the whole land growing rank with thorns and thistles. And this greatest wildness appears in a double gradation: first, every place for growing wine appears covered with thorns and thistles (Isa 7:23-24), and then the same is affirmed of all the hills. It is hard to find a distinction here, because wine grows on the hills, or mountains, too. It seems to me that the Prophet carries out completely in this last member the duality which, as was remarked, rules in the whole section. Everything is double. Already in Isa 7:18 we have flies and bees, meaning Egypt and Assyria; ravines and clefts of the rock; thorn-hedges and pastures. Only Isa 7:20 neglects the rule, because the Prophet would designate the two enemies in an unity. But Isa 7:21 and on, this rule of duality is carried out, and at the close becomes emphatic. We observe two degrees of growing wild. In the first appear: one man and the entire remnant of the inhabitants, cattle and sheep, butter and honey. The second degree, subdivides in two again, in which appears to me to lie the emphasis, and both are characterized by the double notions of thorn and thistle, arrow and bow, a seeding place for cattle, and a trampling place for sheep. The thousand vines and thousand shekels recall Son 8:11. In Syria at the present time the vineyards are still taxed according to the number of the vines; a good vine at one Piaster = about four cents. Therefore, the price of one shekel = to about 25 cents is high. The construction of Isa 7:23 betrays a certain luxuriance and rankness. The first or the last shall be is certainly an excess. Perhaps the Prophet would thereby express by word painting the rank growth of the weeds. Will one go into the property with bow and arrow in order to hunt, or to protect himself? I believe, with Gesenius, both. He that goes in will need his weapons for protection; he that would hunt needs only to go into the nearest vineyard. The protecting fence is gone; beasts wild and tame, penetrate into it. The vineyards of Israel are now a copy of what Israel itself as the vineyard of Jehovah had become (Isa 7:5).
[J. A. Alexander on Isa 7:14-16. The two interpretations that appear to me the most plausible, and the least beset with difficulties are those of Lowth and Vitringa, with which last Hengstenbergs is essentially identical. Either the Prophet, while he foretells the birth of Christ, foretells that of another child, during whose infancy the promised deliverance shall be experienced; or else he makes the infancy of Christ Himself, whether seen as still remote or not, the sign and measure of that same deliverance. While some diversity of judgment ought to be expected and allowed in relation to this secondary question, there is no ground, grammatical, historical or logical, for doubt as to the main point, that the church in all ages has been right in regarding this passage as a signal, and explicit prediction of the miraculous conception and nativity of Christ. On , the Alma. It is enough for us to know that a virgin or unmarried woman is designated here as distinctly as she could be by a single word. That the word means simply a young woman, whether married or unmarried, a virgin or a mother, is a subterfuge invented by the later Greek translators, who, as Justin Martyr tells us, read , instead of the old version , which had its rise before the prophecy became a subject of dispute between Jews and Christians. The use of the word in this connection makes it, to say the least, extremely probable that the event foretold is something more than a birth in the ordinary course of nature.
To account for the Alma by a second marriage of Ahaz, or of Isaiah, or by the presence of a pregnant woman, or the Prophets pointing at her, may be justly charged with gratuitously assuming facts of which we have no evidence, and which are not necessary to the interpretation of the passage. A further objection is, that though they may afford a sign in one of the senses of the word, viz.: that of an emblem or symbol, they do not afford such a sign as the context would lead us to expect. It seems very improbable, after the offer to Ahaz, which he rejected, that the sign bestowed (unasked) would be merely a thing of every-day occurrence, or at most the application of a symbolical name. This presumption is strengthened by the solemnity with which the Prophet speaks of the predicted birth, not as a usual and natural event, but as something which excites his own astonishment, as he beholds it in prophetic vision.
This last objection applies equally to the Authors theory of the Alma being an unmarried princess detected in pregnancy. In addition to all the other assumptions of this theory, which are greater than those of any other, it must be assumed that the pregnancy was at a stage that could be kept secret from the scrutiny that ever characterized the regime of the womens apartments in an oriental family. Otherwise it would be no sign in the Authors sense.
The Authors threefold canon has its foundation in what are obviously conjectures. Whether the sign was to be such as Ahaz was to test, because he would see it accomplished, depended precisely on the sign itself. It might be a sign like that to Moses Exo 3:12, which could only be fulfilled after other events predicted, with which it was associated as a sign, had come to pass. Comp. Isa 37:30. It may have been like those signs given by Christ to unbelievers in His day, that were not meant to induce belief in those that asked, but were the refusal of a sign to them. (vid.Joh 2:18-22; Mat 12:38-40). If it was such a sign, then the Authors first canon is an error. Whether the sign was meant for the whole royal family, according to this third canon, depends wholly on the house of David having the meaning he gives it. Yet that meaning has no other foundation than the conjecture that Isaiah had intruded on the private, domestic retirement of Ahaz. The second canon, viz.: that the sign in its form must be punitive, is only an assumption. The contrary is as easily assumed.
The connection of the words Isa 7:10-16 with the Isa 7:9 b is very close. The belief there challenged is, by a second message, brought to the test. Ahaz does not stand the test. He does not believe, or he would joyfully avail himself of the offered sign, as Hezekiah did later 2Ki 20:8 sq. Thereupon Isaiah proceeds to denounce the consequences already threatened Isa 7:9 b, that must follow unbelief. But first, as to unbelieving Saul was announced the man after Gods own heart that was to be raised up in his place, so to Ahaz is announced, in a clearer light than ever before, the promised seed of the woman who would deliver Israel. But before that would come to pass, the two kingdoms of which Israel was composed, Judah as well as Ephraim must suffer desolation. Thus the prophecy of Immanuel relates to Christ alone, as J. H. Michaelis and others suppose (vid. J. A. Alex,in loc.); and Isa 7:16 is (with Henderson) to be understood of Canaan and its two kingdoms, Ephraim and Judah. This view encounters fewer difficulties than any other, while such as it does encounter are felt as much by any other. On the other hand it is much in favor of this view, that there is then in Isa 7:17 simply a continuation and amplification of the theme begun in Isa 7:16, and no such abruptness as the Author, with most expositors, finds in what Isa 7:17 announces.
The chief difficulty is that in the must be given the force of but (Umbreit). Yet may have its usual sense for, and assign the reason why an Immanuel, that knows good and evil, shall be needed. For before such a one comes, those that call good evil and evil good (vid.Isa 5:20), etc., shall have brought the inheritance of Jehovah to that extremity, by their unbelief, where only such a deliverer can save.Tr.
On Isa 7:18. Assyria and Egypt are named as the two great rival powers, who disturbed the peace of Western Asia, and to whom the land of Israel was both a place, and a subject of contention. The bee cannot of itself denote an army, nor is the reference exclusively to actual invasion, but to annoying and oppressive occupation of the country by civil and military agents of these foreign powers. It was not merely attacked, but infested by flies and bees of Egypt and Assyria. Fly is understood as a generic term, including gnats, mosquitoes, etc., by Henderson, and bee as including wasps and hornets, by Hitzig and Umbreit.
On Isa 7:20. The rabbinical interpretation of is a poor conceit, the adoption of which by Gesenius [and NaegelsbachTr.], if nothing worse, says but little for the taste and the sthetic feeling which so often sits in judgment on the language of the Prophet. The true sense is no doubt the one expressed by Ewald (von oben bis unten) [from head to foot] and before him by Clericus. J. A. Alex.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. On Isa 7:1. Hierosolyma oppugnatur, etc. Jerusalem is assaulted but not conquered. The church is pressed but not oppressed.Foerster.
2. On Isa 7:2. Quando ecclesia, etc. When the Church is assaulted and Christ crucified over again in His elect, Rezin and Pekah, Herod and Pilate are wont to form alliance and enter into friendly relations. There are, so to speak, the foxes of Samson, joined indeed by the tails, but their heads are disconnected.Foerster.He that believes flees not (Isa 28:16). The righteous is bold as a lion (Pro 28:1). Hypocrites and those that trust in works (work-saints) have neither reason nor faith. Therefore they cannot by any means quiet their heart. In prosperity they are, indeed, overweening, but in adversity they fall away (Jer 17:9). Cramer.
3. On Isa 7:9. (If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.) Insignis sententia, etc. A striking sentiment that may be adapted generally to all temptation, because all earnest endeavor after anything, as you know, beguiles us in temptation. But only faith in the word of promise makes us abide and makes sure whatever we would execute. He warns Ahaz, therefore, as if he said: I now promise you by the word, it shall be that those two kings shall not hurt you. Believe this word! For if you do not, whatever you afterwards devise will deceive you: because all confidence is vain which is not supported by the word of God.Luther.
4. On Isa 7:10-12. Wicked Ahaz pretends to great sanctity in abstaining from asking a sign through fear of God. Thus hypocrites are most conscientious where there is no need for it: on the other hand, when they ought to be humble, they are the most insolent. But where God commands to be bold, one must be bold. For to be obedient to the word is not tempting God. That is rather tempting God when one proposes something without having the word for it. It is, indeed, the greatest virtue to rest only in the word, and desire nothing more. But where God would add something more than the word, then it must not be thought a virtue to reject it as superfluous. We must therefore exercise such a faith in the word of God that we will not despise the helps that are given in addition to it as aids to faith. For example the Lord offers us in the gospel all that is necessary to salvation. Why then Baptism and the Lords Supper? Are they to be treated as superfluous? By no means. For if one believes the word he will at the same time exhibit an entire obedience toward God. We ought therefore to learn to join the sign with the word, for no man has the power to sever the two.
But do you ask: is it permitted to ask God for a sign? We have an example of this in Gideon. Answer: Although Gideon was not told of God to ask a sign, yet he did it by the impulse of the Holy Spirit, and not according to his own fancy. We must not therefore abuse his example, and must be content with the sign that is offered by the Lord. But there are extraordinary signs or miracles, like that of the text, and ordinary ones like Baptism and the Lords Supper. Yet both have the same object and use. For as Gideon was strengthened by that miraculous event, so, too, are we strengthened by Baptism and the Lords Supper, although no miracle appears before our eyes. Heim and Hoffmann after Luther. Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, also asked the Lord to show him the right wife for Isaac by means of a sign of His own choosing, (Gen 24:14).
It ought to be said that this asking a sign (opening the Bible at a venture, or any other book) does not suit Christian perfection (Heb 6:1). A Christian ought to be inwardly sensible of the divine will. He ought to content himself with the guarantees that God Himself offers. Only one must have open eyes and ears for them. This thing of demanding a sign, if it is not directly an effect of superstition (Mat 12:39; Mat 16:4; 1Co 1:22), is certainly childish, and, because it easily leads to superstitious abuses, it is dangerous.
5. On Isa 7:13. Non caret, etc. That the Prophet calls God his God is not without a peculiar emphasis. In Zec 2:12 it is said, that whoever touches the servants of God touches the pupil of Gods eye. Whoever opposes teacher and preacher will have to deal with God in heaven or with the Lord who has put them into office.Foerster.
6. On Isa 7:14. The name Immanuel is one of the most beautiful and richest in contents of all the Holy Scripture. God with us comprises Gods entire plan of salvation with sinful humanity. In a narrower sense it means God-man (Mat 1:23), and points to the personal union of divinity and humanity, in the double nature of the Son of God become man. Jesus Christ was a God-with-us, however, in this, that for about 33 years He dwelt among us sinners (Joh 1:11; Joh 1:14). In a deeper and wider sense still He was such by the Immanuels work of the atonement (2Co 5:19; 1Ti 2:3). He will also be such to every one that believes on Him by the work of regeneration and sanctification and the daily renewal of His holy and divine communion of the Spirit (Joh 17:23; Joh 17:26; Joh 14:19-21; Joh 14:23). He is such now by His high-priestly and royal administration and government for His whole Church (Mat 28:20; Heb 7:25). He will be snch in the present time of the Church in a still more glorious fashion (Joh 10:16). The entire and complete meaning of the name Immanuel, however, will only come to light in the new earth, and in the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21:3; Rev 21:23; Rev 22:5).Wilh. Fried. Roos.
Isa 8:7. On Isa 8:5 sqq. Like boastful swimmers despise small and quiet waters, and on the other hand, for the better display of their skill, boast of the great sea and master it, but often are lost in it,thus, too, did the hypocrites that despised the small kingdom of Judah, and bragged much and great things of the power and splendor of the kingdom of Israel and of the Syrians; such hypocrites are still to be found now-a-dayssuch that bear in their eye the admiranda Romae, the splendor, riches, power, ceremonies and pomp of the Romish church, and thereupon set their bushel by the bigger-heap. It is but the devils temptation over again: I will give all this to thee.Cramer.Fons Siloa, etc. The fountain of Siloam, near the temple, daily reminded the Jews that Christ was coming.Calvin on Joh 9:7.
8. On Isa 8:10. When the great Superlatives sit in their council chambers and have determined everything, how it ought to be, and especially how they will extinguish the gospel, then God sends the angel Gabriel to them, who must look through the window and say: nothing will come of it.Luther.Christ, who is our Immanuel, is with us by His becoming man, for us by His office of Mediator, in us by the work of His sanctification, by us by His personal, gracious presence.Cramer.
9. On Isa 8:14-15. Christ alone is set by God to be a stone by which we are raised up. That He is, however, an occasion of offence to many is because of their purpose, petulance and contempt (1Pe 2:8). Therefore we ought to fear lest we take offence at Him. For whoever falls on this stone will shatter to pieces (Mat 21:44). Cramer.
10. On Isa 8:16 sqq. He warns His disciples against heathenish superstition, and exhorts them to show respect themselves always to law and testimony. They must not think that God must answer them by visions and signs, therefore He refers them to the written word, that they may not become altogether too spiritual, like those now-a-days who cry: spirit! spirit! Christ says, Luke 16 : They have Moses and the prophets, and again Joh 5:39 : Search the Scriptures. So Paul says, 2Ti 3:16 : The Scripture is profitable for doctrine. So says Peter, 2Pe 1:9 : We have a sure word of prophecy. It is the word that changes hearts and moves them. But revelations puff people up and make them insolent. Heim and Hoffmann after Luther.
Chap. 911. On Isa 9:1 sqq. (2). Postrema pars, etc. The latter part of chap. 8 was (legal and threatening) so, on the other hand, the first and best part of chap. 9 is , (evangelical and comforting). Thus must ever law and gospel, preaching wrath and grace, words of reproof and words of comfort, a voice of alarm and a voice of peace follow one another in the church. Foerster.
12. On Isa 9:1 (2). Both in the Old Testament and New Testament Christ is often called light. Thus Isaiah calls Him a light to the gentiles, Isa 42:6; Isa 49:6. The same Prophet says: Arise, shine (make thyself light), for thy light is come, Isa 60:1. And again Isa 9:19 : The Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light. In the New Testament it is principally John that makes use of this expression: The life was the light of men, Joh 1:4, and the light shined in the darkness, Joh 9:5. John was not that light, but bore testimony to the light, Joh 9:8. That was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, Joh 9:9. And further: And this is the condemnation that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, Joh 3:19. I am the light of the world, (Joh 8:12; Joh 9:5; comp. Joh 12:35).
13. On Isa 9:1 (2). The people that sit in darkness may be understood to comprise three grades. First, the inhabitants of Zebulon and Naphtali are called so (Isaiah 8:23), for the Prophets gaze is fixed first on that region lying in the extreme end of Palestine, which was neighbor to the heathen and mixed with them, and on this account was held in low esteem by the dwellers in Judah. The night that spreads over Israel in general is darkest there. But all Israel partakes of this night, therefore all Israel, too, may be understood, as among the people sitting in darkness. Finally, no one can deny that this night extends over the borders of Israel to the whole human race. For far as men dwell extends the night which Christ, as light of the world, came to dispel, Luk 1:76 sqq.
14. On Isa 9:5 (6). Many lay stress on the notion child, inasmuch as they see in that the reason for the reign of peace spoken of afterwards. It is not said a man, a king, a giant is given to us. But this is erroneous. For the child does not remain a child. He becomes a man: and the six names that are ascribed to Him and also the things predicted of His kingdom apply to Him, not as a child, but as a man. That His birth as a child is made prominent, has its reason in this, that thereby His relation to human kind should be designated as an organic one. He does not enter into humanity as a man, i.e. as one whose origin was outside of it, but He was born from it, and especially from the race of David. He is Son of man and Son of David. He is a natural offshoot, but also the crowning bloom of both. Precisely because He was to be conceived, carried and born of a human mother, and indeed of a virgin, this prophecy belongs here as the completion and definition of the two prophetic pictures Isa 7:10 sqq.; Isa 8:1 sqq.He came down from heaven for the sake of us men, and for our bliss (1Ti 1:15; Luk 2:7). For our advantage: for He undertook not for the seed of angels, but for the seed of Abraham (Heb 2:16). Not sold to us by God out of great love, but given (Rom 5:15; Joh 3:16). Therefore every one ought to make an application of the word to us to himself, and to learn to say: this child was given to me, conceived for me, born to me.Cramer.Cur oportuit, etc. Why did it become the Redeemer of human kind to be not merely man nor merely God, but God and man conjoined or ? Anselm replies briefly, indeed, but pithily: Deum qui posset, hominem, qui deberet. Foerster.
15. On Isa 9:5 (6). You must not suppose here that He is to be named and called according to His person, as one usually calls another by his name; but these are names that one must preach, praise and celebrate on account of His act, works and office. Luther.
16. On Isa 9:6. Verba pauca, etc. A few words, but to be esteemed great, not for their number but for their weight. Augustine. Admirabilis in, etc. Wonderful in birth, counsellor in what He preaches, God in working, strong in suffering, father of the world to come in resurrection, Prince of peace in bliss perpetual. Bernard of Clairvaux. In reference to a child is born, and a son is given, Joh. Cocceius remarks in his Heb. Lex. s. v. : respectu, etc., in respect to His human nature He is said to be born, and in respect to His divine nature and eternal generation not indeed born, but given, as, Joh 3:16, it reads God gave His only begotten Son.
In the application of this language all depends on the words is born to us, is given to us. The angels are, in this matter, far from being as blessed as we are. They do not say: To us a Saviour is born this day, but; to you. As long as we do not regard Christ as ours, so long we shall have little joy in Him. But when we know Him as our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, as a gift that our heavenly Father designed for us, we will appropriate Him to ourselves in humble faith, and take possession of all His redeeming effects that He has acquired. For giving and taking go together. The Son is given to us; we must in faith receive Him. J. J. Rambach, Betracht. ber das Ev. Esaj., Halle, 1724.
On Isa 9:6 (7). The government is on His shoulders. It is further shown how Christ differs in this respect from worldly kings. They remove from themselves the burden of government and lay it on the shoulders of the privy counsellors. But He does not lay His dominion as a burden on any other; He needs no prime minister and vicegerent to help Him bear the burden of administration, but He bears all by the word of His power as He to whom all things are given of the Father. Therefore He says to the house of Jacob (Isa 46:3 sq.): Hearken unto me ye who were laid on my shoulders from your mothers womb. I will carry you to old age. I will do it, I will lift, and carry and deliver,on the contrary the heathen must bear and lift up their idols, (Isa 46:1; Isa 46:7).Rambach. In the first place we must keep in mind His first name: He is called Wonderful. This name affects all the following. All is wonderful that belongs to this king: wonderfully does He counsel and comfort; wonderfully He helps to acquire and conquer, and all this in suffering and want of strength. (Luther, Jen. germ. Tom. III. Fol. 184 b.). He uses weakness as a means of subduing all things to Himself. A wretched reed, a crown of thorns and an infamous cross, are the weapons of this almighty God, by means of which He achieves such great things. In the second place, He was a hero and conqueror in that just by death, He robbed him of his might who had the power of death, i.e., the devil (Heb 2:14); in that He, like Samson, buried His enemies with Himself, yea, became poison to death itself, and a plague to hell (Hos 13:14) and more gloriously resumed His life so freely laid down, which none of the greatest heroes can emulate.Rambach.
17. On Isa 9:18 (19) sqq. True friendship can never exist among the wicked. For every one loves only himself. Therefore they are enemies one of another; and they are in any case friends to each other, only as long as it concerns making war on a third party.
Isaiah 10-18. On Isa 10:4. (Comp. the same expression in chap. 10). Gods quiver is well filled. If one arrow does not attain His object, He takes another, and so on, until the rights of God, and justice have conquered.
19. On Isa 10:5-7. God works through men in a threefold way. First, we all live, move and have our being in Him, in that all activity is an outflow of His power. Then, He uses the services of the wicked so that they mutually destroy each other, or He chastises His people by their hand. Of this sort the Prophet speaks here. In the third place, by governing His people by the Spirit of sanctification: and this takes place only in the elect.Heim and Hoffmann.
20. On Isa 10:5 sqq. Ad hunc, etc. Such places are to be turned to uses of comfort. Although the objects of temptation vary and enemies differ, yet the effects are the same, and the same spirit works in the pious. We are therefore to learn not to regard the power of the enemy nor our own weakness, but to look steadily and simply into the word, that will assuredly establish our minds that they despair not, but expect help of God. For God will not subdue our enemies, either spiritual or corporal, by might and power, but by weakness, as says the text: my strength is made perfect in weakness. (2Co 12:9).Luther.
21. On Isa 10:15. Efficacia agendi penes Deum est, homines ministerium tantum praebent. Quare nunc sibilo suo se illos evocaturum minabatur (cap. Isa 5:26; Isa 7:18); nunc instar sagenae sibi fore ad irretiendos, nunc mallei instar ad feriendos Israelitas. Sed praecipue tum declaravit, quod non sit otiosus in illis, dum Sennacherib securim vocat, quae ad secandum manu sua et destinata fuit et impacta. Non male alicubi Augustinus ita definit, quod ipsi peccant, eorum esse; quod peccando hoc vel illud agant, ex virtute Dei esse, tenebras prout visum est dividentis (De praedest Sanctt.).Calvin Inst. II. 4, 4.
22. On Isa 10:20-27. In time of need one ought to look back to the earlier great deliverances of the children of God, as to the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, or later, from the hand of the Midianites. Israel shall again grow out of the yoke.Diedrich.
Isaiah 11-23. On Isa 11:4. The staff of His mouth. Evidence that the kingdom of Christ will not be like an earthly kingdom, but consist in the power of the word and of the sacraments; not in leathern, golden or silver girdles, but in girdles of righteousness and faith.Cramer.
24. On Isa 11:10 sqq. If the Prophet honors the heathen in saying that they will come to Christ before Israel, he may be the more readily believed, when Isa 11:11 sqq., he gives the assurance that the return out of the first, the Egyptian exile, shall be succeeded by a return out of the second, the Assyrian exile, (taking this word in the wider sense of Isaiah). It is manifest that the return that took place under Zerubbabel and Ezra was only an imperfect beginning of that promised return. For according to our passage this second return can only take place after the Messiah has appeared. Farthermore, all Israelites that belong to the remnant of Israel, in whatever land they may dwell, shall take part in it. It will be, therefore, a universal, not a partial return. If now the Prophet paints this return too with the colors of the present (Isa 11:13 sqq.), still that is no reason for questioning the reality of the matter. Israel will certainly not disappear, but arise to view in the church of the new covenant. But if the nation is to be known among the nations as a whole, though no more as a hostile contrast, but in fraternal harmony, why then shall not the land, too, assume a like position among the lands? But the nation can neither assume its place among nations, nor the land its place among lands, if they are not both united: the people Israel in the land of their fathers.
25. On Isaiah 11 We may here recall briefly the older, so-called spiritual interpretation. Isa 11:1-5 were understood of Christs prophetic office that He exercised in the days of His flesh, then of the overthrow of the Roman Empire and of Antichrist, who was taken to be the Pope. But the most thorough-going of those old expositors must acknowledge, at Isa 11:4, that the Antichrist is not yet enough overthrown, and must be yet more overthrown. If such is the state of the case, then this interpretation is certainly false, for Isa 11:4 describes not a gradual judgment, but one accomplished at once. There have been many Antichrists, and among the Popes too, but the genuine Antichrist described 2 Thessalonians 2, is yet to be expected, and also the fulfillment of Isa 11:4 of our chapter. Thereby is proved at the same time that the peaceful state of things in the brute world and the return of the Jews to their native land are still things of the future, for they must happen in that period when the Antichristian world, and its head shall be judged by Christ. But then, too, the dwelling together of tame and wild beasts is not the entrance of the heathen into the church, to which they were heretofore hostile, and the return of the Jews is not the conversion of a small part of Israel that took place at Pentecost and after. The miracles and signs too, contained in Isa 11:15-16 did not take place then. We see just here how one must do violence to the word if he will not take it as it stands. But if we take it as we have done, then the whole chapter belongs to the doctrine of hope (Hoffnungslehre) of the Scripture, and constitutes an important member of it. The Lord procures right and room for His church. He overthrows the world-kingdom, together with Antichrist. He makes of the remnant of Israel a congregation of believers filled with the Spirit, to whom He is near in an unusual way, and from it causes His knowledge to go out into all the world. He creates peace in the restless creatures, and shows us here in advance what more glorious things we may look for in the new earth. He presents to the world a church which, united in itself, unmolested by neighbors, stands under Gods mighty protection. All these facts are parts of a chain of hope that must be valuable and dear to our hearts. The light of this future illumines the obscurity of the present; the comfort of that day makes the heart fresh. Weber, der Prophet Jesaja, 1875.
Chap. 1226. On Isa 12:4 sq. These will not be the works of the New Testament: sacrificing and slaying, and make pilgrimage to Jerusalem and to the Holy Sepulchre, but praising God and giving thanks, preaching and hearing, believing with the heart and confessing with the mouth. For to praise our God is good; such praise is pleasant and lovely (Psa 147:1). Cramer.
27. On Chap. 12 With these words conclude the prophetic discourses on Immanuel. Through what obscurity of history have we not had to go, until we came to the bright light of the kingdom of Christ! How Israel and the nations had to pass through the fire of judgment before the sun arises in Israel and the entire gentile world is illumined! It is the, same way that every Christian has to travel. In and through the fire we become blessed. Much must be burnt up in us, before we press to the full knowledge of God and of His Son, before we become entirely one with Him, entirely glad and joyful in Him. Israel was brought up and is still brought up for glory, and we too. O that our end too were such a psalm of praise as this psalm! Weber, Der Pr. Jes. 1875.
Footnotes:
[40]Heb. and the Lord added to speak.
[41]Or, make thy petition deep.
[42]is pregnant.
[43]Or, thou, O Virgin, shalt call.
[44]kings that thou fearest.
[45]brooks of the ravines.
[46]Or, commendable trees.
[47]pastures.
[48]with the hired razor beyond the river.
[49]shall raise of cattle a calf.
[50]he gets.
[51]Heb. in the midst of the land.
[52]where are a thousand, etc., shall be, etc.
[53]for fear of.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Reader! do not forget again, in the perusal of this most blessed scripture, to observe how the Lord takes occasion from man’s unworthiness to magnify the riches of his grace. So, indeed, the Lord hath done from the beginning. The fall of Adam made way for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Oh! what wonders are found in the subject of redeeming grace! How blessed is it to see God’s graciousness! The Lord had sent his servant, the prophet, on a message to Ahaz, to comfort him, notwithstanding his transgressions, in the prospect of his enemies coming up against his kingdom; and though it doth not appear, that it had any effect upon the mind of Ahaz; yet the Lord will speak to him again; and, if possible, in a yet more endearing manner, bids him ask a sign, which might become the proof of divine faithfulness. But the king is deaf to all entreaty. Alas! what creatures we are, when void of grace; how lost and insensible, even to the goodness and long-suffering of God! But though Ahaz slights the Lord, the Lord will not slight his people; the sign shall not be lost to the Church, for it is a most blessed one! And though the king despised it, there were, no doubt, many of God’s hidden ones to whom it proved, as the Lord designed it, a gracious support against the rapidly approaching afflictions of the church. Since Ahaz will not ask a sign, Jehovah will give the house of David a sign unasked: yea, the Lord himself will give both the sign, and the blessing veiled under the sign, from his own free, unmerited, unsought for goodness. Behold then the astonishing sign! A virgin shall conceive, without the use of the natural means of propagation; a son shall be born, without the intervention of a human father; and this wonderful child shall be called by a name significant of his nature, as God and man in one person, even Immanuel! And though so distinguished from all others, yet in the common circumstances of life he shall be as others are; butter and honey shall he eat; that is, he should be subject to all the natural wants, and infirmities of manhood, sin only excepted. Now all these marks and characters were signs indeed, which when fulfilled in one and the same person, left no question remaining as to whom the prophecy referred: and as they never were, nor ever could be fulfilled in any other but the Lord Jesus Christ; how blessed is it to trace the love of God, thus watching over the church, and thus opening to the church’s view the coming of her Lord, at an age so distant and remote, as that in which the prophet Isaiah lived. I only detain the Reader, to remark with me, the grace of God in the sweet discoveries made of Jesus, from age to age: how, by gradual means, from the first dawn of revelation, down to the very moment of Christ’s coming, the Lord unfolded the wonders of his person and character, like the light of the morning, shining more and more unto a perfect day! To Adam it was said, that the Redeemer should be of the seed of the woman; to Abraham, of his house and family; to Jacob, the tribe of which he should spring; in the time of David, many of his offices, in his prophetical, priestly, and kingly character, were foretold; and now in the days of the prophets, other features were given: Isaiah in this place declares, that he should be born of a virgin; Micah is commissioned to tell the place of his birth; Daniel the time: and thus the Lord prepared the church, by little and little, to have clear conceptions both of his person and character, that every soul, might be on the look-out to hail and welcome. the coming Saviour!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Isa 7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
Ver. 10. Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz. ] Wicked though he were, and under the power of unbelief, yet he shall see that be hath to do with a very gracious and longsuffering God, who, by a wonderful condescension, will needs give him a sign; Inauditum vero, dari signum incredulo. Christ would not so far gratify the unbelieving Pharisees, but calleth them an “evil and bastardly brood” for seeking a sign from heaven. Mat 12:39
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Isa 7:10-17
10Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven. 12But Ahaz said, I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD! 13Then he said, Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? 14Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. 15He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. 17The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father’s house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria.
Isa 7:11 There are two ways to understand the Hebrew text of Isa 7:11.
1. two uses of the VERB ask (BDB 981, KB 1371, Qal IMPERATIVE), cf. NKJV, Peshitta
2. one use of the VERB ( BDB 982) and one used of the NOUN Sheol ( BDB 982), both have the same consonants, cf. NASB, Vulgate, TEV, NJB, REB (LXX has depth)
The UBS Preliminary Report on the Hebrew Text has given two asks (IMPERATIVES) a B rating (i.e., some doubt). Both fit the immediate context. Here again the exact wording is unsure, but the meaning of the verse is clear. This is true of the vast majority of these kinds of textual problems. Remember, the central idea of the stanza (or paragraph), not the details, is the key to a proper understanding of God’s revelation to us. The desire to know more, more than others, is not from God!
Amazingly, God is willing to help His fainthearted servant believe in His word. He gives signs to His covenant people (cf. Isa 37:30; Isa 38:7-8; Isa 55:13). This kind of physical confirmation is not available or promised to all believers (cf. Mat 12:38-39; Mat 16:1; Mat 16:4; Mar 8:11-12; Mar 13:4; Luk 11:16; Luk 11:29; Joh 2:18; Joh 4:48; Joh 6:30; 1Co 1:22). Signs and/or miracles can often be satanic tricks (cf. Mat 7:21-22; Mat 24:24; Mar 13:22)!
from the LORD your God It is interesting to note the play between your God vs. my God. However, many OT persons of faith use the term your God in conversations with others. It is an idiom with no theological intent.
make it as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven The Prophet is asserting that Ahaz can ask for any sign on the earth, under the earth, or in the sky above to verify God’s truthfulness. God is willing to clearly reveal His will to Ahaz.
For a discussion of Sheol see Special Topic: The Dead, Where Are They? (Sheol/Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus) .
Isa 7:12 But Ahaz said, ‘I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord’ This sounds like a worthy statement because God’s people are told not to test (BDB 650, KB 702) God (cf. Exo 17:2; Exo 17:7; Num 14:22; Deu 6:16; Psa 78:18; Psa 78:41; Psa 78:56; Psa 95:9; Psa 106:14). However, the motive of this king is that he has already made up his mind to consult with Assyria, not with God, for help. It was not respect for God. God Himself gave the Davidic king this opportunity to confirm his trust in His word, protection, and provision, but he would not!
Isa 7:13 Listen now This VERB (BDB 1033, KB 1570, Qal IMPERATIVE, PLURAL) is used so often in Isaiah, but only here in Immanuel’s book (i.e., Isaiah 7-12). God wants to be heard and obeyed!
house of David In this context this phrase, which could be corporate, is referring to Ahaz as a representative of Davidic kingship (cf. 2 Samuel 7).
Is it too slight a thing This is a Hebrew idiom (BDB 589, cf. Num 16:13; Jos 22:17; Eze 16:20; Eze 34:18). The people were treating God and His revealed will (the Mosaic law) as a small thing, an unimportant thing.
try the patience This VERB (BDB 521, KB 512) is used twice.
1. once referring to humans (Hiphil INFINITIVE CONSTRUCT)
2. once referring to God (Hiphil IMPERFECT)
Ahaz has not performed his duties as YHWH’s representative (cf.. 2 Samuel 7) among the people well!
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign This sign (BDB 16) must initially apply to Ahaz’s day (esp. Isa 7:15-16)!
virgin The Hebrew term here is almah (BDB 761). This term is used for a young woman of marriageable age (cf. Gen 43:24; Exo 2:8; Pro 30:19). It designates a woman who is sexually mature. There is another Hebrew term for virgin, bethulah (BDB 143), which is used by Isaiah in Isa 23:4; Isa 23:12; Isa 37:22; Isa 47:1; Isa 62:5. The Septuagint translates this verse with the Greek term virgin. These terms are semantically overlapping and all of the young girls in Israeli culture were considered to be virgins. However, I do not believe in two virgin births, but one. There was a normal conception in Ahaz’s day as a sign and a (the, MT) virgin conception in Jesus’ day (cf. Mat 1:18-23; Luk 1:26-38). This is a multi-fulfillment prophecy!
I think the reason that the NT does not emphasize this more (only appears in the two birth narratives [i.e., Mat 1:23; Luk 1:31; Luk 1:34] and never in a sermon in Acts or an Epistle by any Apostle) is because of the possible misunderstanding of Greco-Roman religion where the cohabitation of gods and humans, resulting in offspring, was common.
To try to base a doctrine of sin as transmitted through male sperm and, therefore, show the reason for a virgin birth is, in my opinion, folly! In reality it is similar to the barren wives of the Patriarchs having children only at God’s instigation. God is in control of the Messiah! An even greater truth is revealed in the NT where the Messiah is presented clearly as incarnated Deity (i.e., Joh 1:1; Joh 5:18; Joh 10:33; Joh 14:9-11; Php 2:6)! Thus the need for a virgin birth!
NASBwill be with child and bear a son
NKJV,
PESHITTAshall conceive and bear a son
NRSVis with child and shall bear a son
TEVwho is pregnant will have a son
NJB, REBis with child and will give birth to a son
LXXshall be with child and bear a son
The ADJECTIVE (BDB 248) usually denotes someone who is already pregnant, but there is some ambiguity, as is obvious from the versions.
This must refer to some lady in Isaiah’s day; whether it was the king’s wife (i.e., birth of Hezekiah), the prophet’s wife, or a young woman at court is uncertain, but Hezekiah (Ahaz’s son) fits the Davidic context best.
Immanuel This name (BDB 769) means God with us (cf. Isa 8:8; Isa 8:10). In Isaiah’s day many children were named with names involving Deity. The name of the child is the sign, not his unique birth! These people were not expecting a supernatural, virgin born, incarnate Deity, supernatural child! This is not an OT truth, but a NT progressive revelation truth!
Isa 7:15-16 These verses are parallels (three repeated VERBALS). This parallelism is characteristic of Hebrew literary style (both in a literary unit, and on a paragraph and verse level).
Isa 7:15 He will eat curds and honey There are two theories as to the meaning of the phrase: this means either he will come at a time of great abundance (i.e., Exo 3:8), or just the opposite, that he will come at a time of great scarcity (cf. Isa 7:21-22).
at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good This seems to refer to
1. the age of accountability (i.e., the results of religious training)
2. that he will be a young child who knows what is forbidden or appropriate. In later Jewish life this would normally be around thirteen years of age(i.e., Bar-Mitzvah). However, Isa 8:4 implies much earlier!
Isa 7:16 the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken This refers to the defeat and exile of Syria (cf. Amo 1:3-5) and Israel (cf. Isa 17:3) by Assyria. The capital of Israel, Samaria, fell to Assyria in 722 B.C. after an extended siege. The vast majority of these tribes never returned to Canaan, but were absorbed by the populations where they were exiled (i.e., Media).
Isa 7:17 The LORD will bring on you This is a good example that every historical crisis in the nation of Israel was controlled by YHWH for His purposes.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Moreover. It seems as though Isaiah wanted to see what Ahaz would say to Isa 7:9.
spake. This identifies the words with Jehovah Himself, and not merely with Isaiah. It shows the vast importance of the coming prophecy.
again = added. Literally added to speak. Occurs in this connection only again in Isa 8:5 in this book.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Isa 7:10-17
Isa 7:10-17
“And Jehovah spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of Jehovah thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt Jehovah. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good, For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken. Jehovah will bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy fathers house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah – even the king of Assyria.”
The first two verses of this paragraph record God’s offer to provide a sign (presumably a miraculous sign) to strengthen the faith of Ahaz, even offering him the choice of what it might be; but hypocritical Ahaz, having already made up his mind to reject God’s counsel, refused to ask, pretending that he did not wish to tempt Jehovah. Of course, he referred to such passages in the Law as that found in Deu 6:6; but it would not have been `tempting God’ for him to accept God’s offer.
Some believe that, in spite of Ahaz’ unbelieving and hypocritical refusal to cooperate with God in the matter of a miraculous sign, God went ahead and gave him the sign of The Virgin anyway; but we shall explore that possibility later in our special notes on The Virgin. Notice the dramatic shift from “thy” God (Isa 7:11) to “my” God (Isa 7:13). Notice also that the same Isa 7:13 is the place where the prophet ceased from addressing King Ahaz and addressed, instead, the whole House of David. Notice also that the pronoun “he” in Isa 7:13 is a reference to Isaiah, not Ahaz.
BEHOLD; THE VIRGIN SHALL CONCEIVE AND BEAR A SON – Isa 7:10.
This extremely important prophecy is one of the most discussed and debated in the entire Old Testament.; and we wish to begin by our confident allegation that here indeed is a true prophecy of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ our Lord, who in the only true sense, must be hailed as the unique example of one truly entitled to be called “God with us.” We are familiar with all the objections that evil and unbelieving men have made against this view, and these shall be noted later in this discussion. Here are the reasons for our own confidence in the true meaning of the prophecy.
1. Note that the prophecy does not say “a virgin,” but “The Virgin” (consult marginal notes on this), a title that could hardly belong to anyone ever born except the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus. The silly objection that the ultimate fulfillment of this was too far removed to do Ahaz any good is worthless, because it was not designed to do Ahaz any good. That evil man had already refused to see a sign from God; and the notion that God forced the issue and gave him a sign anyway is ridiculous. This sign was for “the House of David,” not for Ahaz.
2. The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ the Son of God is the unique and only authenticated example of such an occurrence in the history of the human race; and it was verified by medical testimony and by the unanimous testimony of the first century of the Christian era, the gospels themselves being just about the most historical documents known to mankind; and the apostle Matthew cited this prophecy as a predictive announcement of Christ’s birth. No arrogant and conceited modern seminarian has any right or ability whatever to contradict the testimony of an inspired apostle of Jesus Christ on a subject like this.
3. But, how about the word [~`almah]? Does it not have a possible meaning of “young woman”; and could the allegation of unbelievers such as Peake be true? He wrote that, “The rendering `virgin’ here is unjustifiable; the Hebrew word employed here means a young woman of marriageable age, without any suggestion that she is not married.
To begin with, this alleged meaning of “[~`almah]” is a disputed matter; but even if the critical rendition of it should be allowed, it could not possibly obscure the true meaning of the word which is “virgin.”
A fact apparently unknown to critical enemies of God’s Word is that the true meaning of any word must finally be determined, not by any etymological data, but by the USAGE of it. Look at the following: hamburgers are not made out of ham; trotlines do not trot; catheads have nothing to do with cats, and a horse-cock reamer has nothing to do with horses! Ask anybody in the oil business!
All right, now let us take a look at the usage of [~`almah]. We are indebted to Homer Hailey for the following summary on the usage of [~`almah] in God’s Word:
“This word was never used of a married woman, nor of an immoral woman. This word occurs six times in Biblical passages in addition to the one before us. In every instance, the word refers to an unmarried, chaste woman. (1) In Gen 24:43, Rebekah is called [~`almah], and also [~bethuwlah], a woman whom no man had known (Gen 24:16). (2) In Exo 2:8, Moses’ sister, Miriam, in her childhood is called [~`almah]. (3) and (4) Twice in the Song of Solomon it refers to a chorus of young women (Son 1:3) distinguished from Solomon’s queens and concubines (Son 6:8). (5) And in Pro 30:19 it refers to a maiden in contrast to an adulterous woman. (6) In Psa 68:25 the word describes the damsels who played timbrels in the sanctuary; and any assumption that those damsels were anything but virgins is impossible.
Remember that there are no Biblical examples of where the word [~`almah] ever referred to anyone except a virgin in the usual sense of the word. That accounts for the existence of the next argument we shall cite, that is, No. 4. below.
4. Two hundred fifty years before Christ was born, the Septuagint (LXX) version of the Hebrew Scriptures was translated into the Greek language by seventy of the most renowned scholars on earth, their number being reflected in the symbol for that version. A copy of the LXX is before this writer as this paragraph is written. How did they translate this verse 14? Here it is:
“O house of David … Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel.
Thus the great scholars who gave us the Hebrew Bible in the Greek language translated the Hebrew [~`almah] with a word that evil men could not possibly misunderstand; and we believe that no group of scholars has yet appeared in human history that outranks the ability and quality of the famed “seventy” who authored the LXX. No Dr. Conceit, or Dr. Smart, or Dr. Anybody else has learned any more about the Hebrew tongue than was most certainly known to the translators of the Septuagint Version of the Bible. In this light we are absolutely certain that the current translators of the Revised Standard Version betrayed the faith when they translated [~`almah] with what is most surely a corrupt rendition, namely, ” a young woman.” There is no reason whatever to respect such an erroneous translation. The 20th Century A.D. is not the era in which anyone may expect to find any new information about the meaning of Hebrew words used 2,800 years earlier.
5. The introduction to this prophecy makes it impossible of misunderstanding. Look at these words: THEREFORE; THE LORD HIMSELF SHALL GIVE YOU A SIGN; BEHOLD; A VIRGIN SHALL CONCEIVE! Can it be imagined for a single moment that such a prelude could appropriately introduce such commonplace information as the fact that some young woman would get pregnant! Ridiculous! Preposterous! Impossible! The information that this would be a tremendous sign from God Himself and which is here preceded by the heavenly order to “Behold!” the marvelous event, has no meaning at all, unless it indicates that an event of world-shaking importance would be indicated by the forthcoming announcement, as indeed it proved to be!
WERE THERE TWO FULFILLMENTS?
The erroneous supposition that there was first an immediate fulfillment of this prophecy given as a sign to Ahaz and that the ultimate remote fulfillment was realized in the birth of Christ is attractive, because many of the prophetic promises of that era were indeed fulfilled twice, a number of which are cited in the New Testament, as in “Rachel weeping for her children” (Mat 2:18); “Out of Egypt did I call my son” (Mat 2:15).
Some very respected commentators have accepted this view. For example, Dummelow has this:
“In the first place, the sign must have been intended by Isaiah as a sign of encouragement to Ahaz – meaning that before a child shortly to be born could arrive at the years of observation, the enemies of Judah would be brought to naught.
There are several considerations that are contrary to this interpretation. First, the child to be born who is referred to here was not just “a child,” but a very special person named IMMANUEL even before he was born! Moreover, the mother was designated as The Virgin, not in any sense, merely “some young woman.” Furthermore, the text indicates that the prophecy was not to Ahaz at all, but to the “House of David.” Ahaz had already refused any sign from God. Dummelow himself admitted the essential truth here as follows:
“At the same time, it is evident that the child is no ordinary one, from the way in which the prophet refers to him as Lord of the land (Isa 8:8), and from the titles given to him in Isa 9:6. The child is in fact the Messiah.
The notion that this prophecy occurred at this place because of Isaiah’s expectation of the advent of the Messiah in the very near future is quite gratuitous, because the text indicates no such thing. Besides that, let it be remembered that God Himself here spoke through Isaiah, and that it is immaterial what Isaiah might have thought.
THE NECESSITY FOR THE VIRGIN BIRTH
Observe the word Immanuel. It means God with us; and right here is the citadel and fortress of the Christian faith. God entered the ranks of humanity, became a man in the person of his son Jesus Christ, and paid the penalty for human sin, laying upon himself in the person of his Son the iniquity of us all. All of the nonsense one encounters in such studies as “Comparative Religions” runs completely out of “comparisons” in this very event. In all of the ethnic cults, it is man who always pays. The most valiant young man goes out to fight the dragon, or it is the fairest daughter in the tribe that becomes the sacrifice. It is some Prometheus who is forever chained to the rocks where the vultures eat out his liver; but in the Christian religion, God Himself pays the penalty of redemption.
But consider what this entails. God will become a man? How? Would God kill a man and take his body? All of the unbelievers on earth have never come up with a better suggestion as to how God could become a human being than the plan prophesied and executed in the Holy Bible. Human procreation always produces a new person; but Christ was not a new person! He was present even in Creation (Joh 1:1 ff). Here in this word Immanuel we have the prophecy of what took place when Christ was born, the same prophecy repeated by Zacharias at a time much closer to the event itself, namely, The Dayspring from on High shall visit us (Luk 1:78)!
Isa 7:10-13 THE SIGN OFFERED AND REFUSED: Ahaz made no move to show that he believed Gods promise concerning the continuity of the kingdom of Judah. He was silent. God, to stir up his faith, offers a sign to guarantee fulfillment of His promise. Ahaz haughtily refuses the sign in language he intended should sound pious and loyal, but Ahaz had already decided to do his own will. He knew as well as anyone that when God commands a man to ask for a sign it is not putting God to the test to obey Him. Ahaz, like many others before and after him, wanted to work things out in his own way! His way seemed to be so much better. To be an ally of this great and feared monarch of Assyria was so much better than being an ally of an invisible God. Isaiah rebukes the king (Isa 7:13) by pointing out that the king may try the patience of men (Gods prophets) and not suffer dire consequences, but it is no small matter to try the patience of Jehovah by hypocrisy and rebelliousness.
Isa 7:14-16 THE SIGN COMPELLED: Ahaz tried to fool the prophet with his feigned piety. But God was not fooled and spoke through Isaiah that He would give Ahaz a sign whether the king wanted one or not. This sign would not be wasted, as we shall see, for it would establish the faithfulness and veracity of God to keep His covenant. And if Ahaz refused to appropriate it, others of the house of David would!
To consider the sign here to be given, one must first consider the Hebrew word almah, translated in the ASV virgin and in the RSV young woman and in some other versions maiden. The Hebrew and English Lexicon of The Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Briggs says of almah, young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married). Gesenius Hebrew lexicon, the accepted authority among practically all Hebrew lexicographers says, a girl of marriageable age . . . the notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys, for which the proper word is bethulah. Keil and Delitzsch say in their commentary here, . . . whilst bethulah signifies a maiden living in seclusion in her parents house and still a long way from matrimony, almah is applied to one fully mature, and approaching the time of her marriage . . . It is also admitted that the idea of spotless virginity was not necessarily connected with almah, since there are passages (e.g. Son 6:8 where it can hardly be distinguished from the Arabic surrije); and a person who had a very young-looking wife might be said to have an almah for his wife . . . the expression itself warrants the assumption that by almah the prophet meant one of the young maidens of the kings (Ahaz) harem . . . We conclude then, that a child was to be born to one who might be a young woman who was a virgin, or a young woman of marriageable age not necessarily a virgin, or a married woman who was very young looking, or perhaps a young woman who was a member of a kings harem whatever her state of virginity.
Perhaps the more immediate question is, Who is Immanuel? The literal meaning of the word is, of course, God with us. It should be apparent that Immanuel of Isa 7:14, Isa 8:8, and the child of Isa 9:6 and the branch of Isa 11:1 ff is one and the same mighty divine personage. This can be none other than Christ, the Messiah. But, if the passage here under discussion (Isa 7:10-16) constitutes a real prophecy of Christ, how are we to explain the plain reference in Isa 7:16 to events belonging to the days of Ahaz and Isaiah? How can the coming of Christ to years of discretion, some seven centuries after Ahaz, be made to fix the time for the forsaking of the land of Israel and Syria? And how could a childs coming to age of understanding some seven centuries after Ahaz be a sign to Ahaz? Surely some more immediate birth of a child must be in view here.
The late Dr. J. Gresham Machen, famous defender of the inspiration of the scriptures and world-renowned scholar, wrote in his classical work, The Virgin Birth of Christ, In reply, either one of two things may be said. In the first place, it may be held that the prophet has before him in vision the birth of the child Immanuel, and that irrespective of the ultimate fulfillment the vision itself is present. I see a wonderful child, the prophet on this interpretation would say, a wonderful child whose birth shall bring salvation to his people; and before such a period of time shall elapse as would lie between the conception of the child in his mothers womb and his coming to years of discretion, the land of Israel and Syria shall be forsaken.
In the second place, one may hold that in the passage some immediate birth of a child is in view, but that that event is to be taken as the foreshadowing of the greater event that was to come . . . So in our passage, the prophet, when he placed before the rebellious Ahaz that strange picture of the mother and the child, was not only promising deliverance to Judah in the period before a child then born should know how to refuse evil and choose the good, but also, moved by the Spirit of God, was looking forward, as in a dim and mysterious vision, to the day when the true Immanuel, the mighty God and Prince of Peace, should lie as a little babe in a virgins arms.
According to Machens second explanation, then, a young woman (almah) contemporary with Ahaz and Isaiah would conceive and bear a son and call his name Immanuel. Before this child should reach the age to be able to choose the good and refuse evil, Israel and Syria would no longer be a threat to Judah. This contemporary almah and her child was a type of the virgin Mary and her child, the Christ! In view of the many prophecies of the Old Testament which have two fulfillments and are typical of the Messiah or the messianic age (Hos 11:1 etc.), and in view of the plain necessity for a contemporary sign to Ahaz, we have no problem in accepting Machens second explanation.
But who is the almah whose child-bearing in Ahaz day constitutes the sign that Jehovah gives? Two unsatisfactory answers have been given in the past: (a) Isaiahs wife. She named her son Maher-shalal-hash-baz and the almahs son was to be named Immanuel. Besides, Isaiahs wife would hardly be a young-looking woman since Isaiah was about 60 years old at this time; (b) Ahaz wife, Abi (Abijah), mother of Hezekiah. But Hezekiah was born before Ahaz came to the throne (as pointed out by Jerome) so his birth could not have been referred to within the reign of Ahaz as lying still in the future! Who she was we do not know. We do know that she and the birth of her child and the divine deliverance of Judah connected to that birth became a type of the virgin who would conceive when the Holy Spirit came upon her and give birth to the Messiah who would bring the divine deliverance from sin and death finally and completely (Mat 1:23), and would sit upon the throne of Judah forever. This is the concept Ahaz refused to believe, that Gods throne, Gods people, Gods covenant could be perpetuated without some recourse to human power. So Ahaz thought to protect the throne of Judah and perpetuate it by making alliance with pagan Assyria. Ahaz assured himself that Assyria was his only source of help against Israel and Syria.
But God told Ahaz that he would be given a sign of the divine power to protect and perpetuate the throne of Judah whether Ahaz wanted such divine help or not! The immediate sign to Ahaz (and all in his day) of the divine protection of the covenant would be the fulfillment of Isaiahs prediction that within a very short time the lands of Pekah and Rezin would be made desolate. The very short time is indicated by the prediction that before the child born to the almah could come to the age to make the moral choice of good and evil, these lands would be desolate. This time element is the real focus of the sign for Ahaz. Some have said that within two or three years from birth most children are able to choose good and reject evil. Isaiah delivered Gods sign to Ahaz approximately 734 B.C. and in 732 B.C. Tiglath-Pileser captured Damascus (capitol of Syria) and invaded Israel. This immediate demonstration of Gods foreknowledge and power in the perpetuation of His covenant of redemption should establish and confirm His faithfulness to complete His work of redemption in the dim and distant future in the child and the branch who would be Immanuel. This is the aim of Isa 7:14, and this is the application the inspired gospel writer, Matthew, made of the prophecy. The conception of the virgin Mary was the signal to all the world that God had at last arrived at the time for consummation of all His promises of establishing the throne of Judah forever. And the sign given to Ahaz was a type of this divine entry into history given seven centuries in advance.
The child born to the almah contemporary with Ahaz will eat butter and honey up to the day it shall be able to choose good and evil. In other words, the danger to Judah, then being caused by the war upon it by Pekah and Rezin would be only temporary-two or three years at the most. Butter and honey are not the ordinary food of an agricultural population. Rather such a diet indicates shortage of staple foods. Judah, under attack by the northern coalition, was suffering food shortages, but God would deliver them from this in a short time. However, because of Ahaz unbelief and his enslavement of the whole country to Assyria, they would soon be back on their starvation diets (Cf. Isa 7:22).
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Moreover: etc. Heb. and the Lord added to speak, Isa 1:5, Isa 1:13, Isa 8:5, Isa 10:20, Hos 13:2, *marg.
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
AN UNBELIEVING KING
Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above, etc.
Isa 7:10-14
I. Isaiah is desired to offer Ahaz a sign either in the depth or the height.That the Jewish economy was in some sense an economy of signs we all admit. The Jewish prophet was to call the attention of his countrymen to these signs, to discover the signification of them. Our Lord laid down the whole doctrine upon this subject when the Pharisees sought a sign from Him. He had given them signs of healing, life-giving power proofs, that a present God was with them. But they wanted a sign from heaven, the token of some distant God in the sky. That, He said, was the craving of an adulterous or sense-bound generation; and He asked them whether there were not signs in the sky at morning and evening by which they determined whether there would be a fine or cloudy day on the morrow, and whether there were not signs of the times which were warning them of evils to come. The new world has been just as rich in these signs as the old. If we do not use these, we may have others; but it will be because we are an adulterous and sinful generation, and need the portents and presages of an approaching downfall.
II. Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord my God.It was a hypocritical phrase; he did not fear to tempt the Lord his God; he did not believe Him. He feared lest the God of his fathers should do him some injury. O house of David! said Isaiah, is it not enough for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Do you think you can change His purposes because you are incredulous and heartless? No; the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: A Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
III. From this time we may observe a continual recurrence of these two ideasfrequently in direct conjunction, always following close upon each otherthe Assyrian invader, and the Immanuel, God with us.Isaiah speaks of himself and the children whom God has given him; all these were to be living signs, continual testimonies of an impending ruin and of a great Deliverer, of One to Whom every Israelite might turn with his heart, and in Whom he might find rest and salvation; but Whose presence would stir up all the dark and evil and rebellious thoughts of those who would not yield themselves to Him.
Rev. F. D. Maurice.
Illustration
What is the implication of this passage? It is just this, that if we wish to have an exquisite spirit of discernment, a fine judgment, it is all-essential that we concentrate our wills in full surrender to the will of our God. Our judgments will become just when our wills have been laid down in lowly quest of the mind of God. It is of the consecrated folk that this word is written, I will guide thee with Mine eye. Let the life be consecrated in unconditional surrender, and we shall feel the hand of the Lord upon us for good. When the ways are many we shall know the right one.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Isa 7:10-12. The Lord spake again unto Ahaz Namely, by Isaiah. From hence to Isa 7:16, we have the confirmation of the promise, by a sign to Ahaz, in the name of God; in which we have, first, the prophets address to Ahaz, exhorting him, by the divine command, to ask whatever sign he would, with the reply of Ahaz, Isa 7:10-12 : and, secondly, a declaration of Gods good pleasure to give an illustrious sign, which he offers rather to the true believers than to a hypocritical and incredulous king, Isa 7:13-16. Through the strong and forcible objections which some learned men have made against applying the prophecy contained in these verses to Christ, in its primary sense, Huetius, Grotius, and some other commentators, have been led to suppose that it immediately related to the birth of a child in a natural way, and that it only refers in a secondary sense to the birth of Christ. Thus Bishop Lowth observes, The obvious, literal meaning of the prophecy, not excluding a higher secondary sense, is this: That, within the time that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive, and bring forth a child, and that child should arrive at such an age as to distinguish between good and evil, that is, within a few years,
(compare Isa 8:4,) the enemies of Judah should be destroyed. But, surely, as Dr. Doddridge observes, on Mat 1:23, A sons being born of one, then a virgin, when she was married, was no such miraculous event as to answer such a pompous introduction as we have here. Of this the reader may easily judge by attending to the prophets words, and a short and easy paraphrase upon them. Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God A sign is a miracle wrought for the confirmation of some message, promise, or doctrine delivered from God. Some unusual or extraordinary effect, production, or phenomenon, which could not be explained from natural causes, but only from the omnipotence of the Ruler of the universe; which, moreover, signified that God was present, and ratified the word, or declaration, for which the sign was given. See Exo 4:8; Jdg 6:17; Isa 38:22. Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above Demand some prodigy to be wrought, either in earth or heaven, at thy pleasure. By speaking thus, the prophet signified that all nature was subject to the power and control of that God, whom he calls the God of Ahaz, as being the God of his fathers, and in order to admonish him wherein to place his confidence. But Ahaz said, I will not ask This refusal did not proceed from faith in God and true humility, but rather from his contempt of God, and disregard of his word, as is sufficiently evident from the history of his life. He probably feared lest, if such a sign should be given as he did not choose, he should be compelled to desist from his purpose of calling in the aid of Assyria, which he could not well have called in after Jehovah had given a sign to the contrary. Besides, he did not dare to commit himself to that divine favour and providence, which he had heretofore so proudly despised; preferring to it the protection of other and false deities. See Vitringa. Neither will I tempt the Lord By distrusting his providence, or asking a sign, as if I questioned the truth of his word. But this was deep hypocrisy, as appears by the prophets answer.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The sign of Immanuel 7:10-17
Isaiah next tried to move Ahaz to faith (Isa 7:10-12), then denounced the king for his failure to trust Yahweh (Isa 7:13-15), and finally forecast a calamity worse than the division of Israel’s United Kingdom (Isa 7:16-17).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Evidently Isaiah’s conversation with the king continued on the same day in the same place. The prophet gave Ahaz another message from the Lord.
"According to a very marvelous interchange of idioms (communicatio idiomatum) which runs through the prophetic books of the Old Testament, at one time the prophet speaks as if he were Jehovah, and at another, as in the case before us, Jehovah speaks as if He were the prophet." [Note: Delitzsch, 1:213.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Ahaz and Judah’s test 7:10-8:10
Now Ahaz had to make a decision. Would he trust that God was with him and would protect Jerusalem, or would he reject God’s promise and try to establish security another way?