Grace Journal 10.3 (Fall, 1969) 3-15.
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
ISAIAH'S IMMANUEL
EDWARD E. HINDSON
Many attempts have been made to
identify and demonstrate the significance of the
figure “Immanuel" in the writings of Isaiah. His
name appears in 7:14; 8:8;
interesting that children play an important role in
these chapters which deal with the
virgin's son, the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz and the child who will rule on David's
throne.
Early interpreters preferred a
"messianic" fulfillment, but the bulk of critical com-
menators in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries denied the "messianic" interpretation
of the Immanuel passage. Soon, conservative
writers began to take a dual-fulfillment
viewpoint in an attempt to reconcile the arguments
of both.1 Today, the general
opinion
is still quite mixed. Only Edward J. Young has
written a major commentary in support of
the strictly "messianic" in the past
half-century.2
The "Book of Immanuel"
covers 7:1-12:6.3 Two questions are prominent in the
interpretation of this passage: 1) Who
is Immanuel? 2) Did Isaiah consider him to be
already present in the land? Undoubtedly the
most detail on him is given in chapter
seven. Therefore, it is obvious that a proper
interpretation necessitates a careful study of
the
BACKGROUND
According to the information
supplied by Isaiah in 7:1-9,
Kingdom
(Ephraim) had formed an alliance against
them in standing against powerful
with their own "puppeting"
who would co-operate with their ambitions. Fearing the
invasion of his neighbors, Ahaz
was inclined to call on the aid of the Assyrian
conqueror, Tiglath-pileser.
According to 2 Kings
attacked
hundred twenty thousand of
the Kings passage tells the beginning and end of
the siege; while Chronicles fills in the
intervening events. 2 Kings 16, therefore, appears
to be parallel to Isaiah.
Edward E. Hindson
holds the M. A. degree from
presently a postgraduate student at Grace
Theological Seminary.
4
GRACE
JOURNAL
Rezin,
King of Syria, appears to be the instigator, since the verb is singular and
the conjunction before Pekah
indicates that: "Rezin came up, together with Pekah"
against
seems to have given him over to Pekah
and the spoil which had been taken from
was delivered to
the prophecy given in Isaiah seven.5
At
return of the captives and apparently Ahaz was also sent back to
however, seem to deter the mentions of Rezin and Pekah since they
regrouped for further
attack. What
had panicked Ahaz was the announcement that the
Syrian army had not
returned home,
was "resting" (nahah) upon Ephraim, and evidently this
"friendly halt" in
Israelite
territory only signified evil consequences to Ahaz.6 To him, appeal
to
seemed to be the only isolation. It was at this time
that Isaiah came to dissuade Ahaz
from taking a wrong course of action by relying upon
do so he sought to bring a word of comfort and
victory to the fearful monarch who
thought all was hopeless.
The fact that Isaiah found Ahaz
by the upper pool is evidence that the king was
expecting to be attacked and was attempting to
ensure the water supply.7 We see Isaiah
coming, to meet the young king at the end of the
conduit of the upper pool in the
highway of the fuller’s field which is west of
the city. Accompanying his father is Shear-
Yashub ("a remnant shall return”). The significance of his presence has been
overlooked
by many. In chapter eight we are told that
Isaiah’s sons are for signs. Therefore, it would
not be improper to find meaning in the boy's name,
which is indicative of hope. It is a
striking name in which the emphasis falls upon
the "remnant" rather than the "returning,"
indicating God's actual dealings with His people.8
Isaiah tells Ahaz that
the two firebrands from the north (Rezin of Syria and
Pekah
Ephraim)
are only "smoldering sticks." Though they have devised evil against
the throne
of David by setting up the son of Tabeel,9
they shall not succeed, for God has other
purposes for that throne. In 2 Samuel 7:14-17,
God had promised a permanent dynasty to
the throne of David. It was to be reserved for the
coming of the "Anointed One." The
prophet then calls for faith and courage from Ahaz to receive what he is about to say.
The most helpful and clear picture of the
introduction and warning is given in a
chart by Raven.10
The Head of Syria is The Head of Ephraim is
AFFIR
-
Remaliah.
Within
PREDIC-
five
years shall Ephraim not surely
ye
TION
be
broken that it be not shall
not
a people. remain.
ISAIAH'S IMMANUEL 5
The poetic structure makes it clear that Ephraim
is to fall and within sixty-five
years lose all national distinction, and that
warning.11
Here
we have the picture.
submit to his northern invaders. But rather than turn
to God, he would seek the support of
the Assyrian Empire. It should be remembered that Ahaz was the one who introduced the
pagan Assyrian altar to the temple worship in
deliberately disobedient to
God. Only such a man could reject the
promise of help from
God that was about to be extended to him.
"THEREFORE"
Having renounced Ahaz
for trying his and God's patience by refusing the sign that
had been offered him to assure
of God's blessing, Isaiah connects his statements in verse
13 to verse 14 with the Hebrew particle laken
("therefore"). Its emphasis may be
clarified by such phrases as: "since this is
so," "for these reasons," "according to such
conditions."12 This connective word often was used by
the prophets to introduce a divine
command or declaration. Most commentators have
not bothered to deal much with this
word. Young and Budde,
however, stress its relationship to verse 13. They feel it serves
to introduce a "sign of a different character
from that which had previously been
offered."13 Ahaz
could have chosen any sign to attest God's message of hope as delivered
by the prophet, but he refused and,
"therefore," God will choose His own sign.
The context into which verse 14 fits is unified
by the transitory word, "therefore."
The
worried king will not trust in God, so the prophet announces that God will give
a
sign to the nation of
is at stake and later the nation will be removed,
the people needed some confidence to
trust in God's maintaining the throne of David for
"all generations." It is the sign of
Immanuel that commands their confidence in God. Isaiah had taken a
message of hope to
the king, but in return he will give him a sign of
eventual doom (to Judah) and of ultimate
hope (to the throne of David).
"SIGN"
In Scripture the word ‘ot refers to
something addressed to the senses to attest the
existence of divine power. Often extraordinary events
were given as a sign to assure faith
or to demonstrate authority. Many opinions have
been expressed as to the significance of
the "sign" in this passage.14
The term seems not necessarily to demand a miracle in every
instance, but rather is a pledge of the truth of
something.15 The main purpose in God's
giving the sign to Ahaz was
to establish the vindication of Isaiah's divine commission.
It should be noted that the "sign" was
given by the Lord (‘adonai).
The covenant
name yhwh is not used here. Usually, Isaiah uses ‘adonai to
emphasize the Lord's
omnipotence.16 It is He alone who can give such a sign as
will follow.
6
GRACE
JOURNAL
It is also important to notice that the sign is
directed to "you" (plural) and is not
evidently directed to Ahaz
who rejected the first offer.17
In v. 13, Isaiah had said: "Hear
ye now, O house of David" and it is apparent
that the plural “you" in v. 14, is to be
connected to its antecedent "ye" in v.
13. Since the context tells us that the
dynasty of
David
is what is at stake in the impending invasion, It would seem proper to
interpret the
plural “you” as the "house of David " which
is the recipient of the sign.18
This being true, then, all objections to the
relevancy of a messianic prediction to
Ahaz’s contemporary situation are
nullified. The prophet did not direct the sign merely to
Ahaz and therefore, a strictly messianic
interpretation of the sign is not out of the
question. This matter of the relevancy of the
sign has been the main argument of those
criticizing the messianic interpretation of the
passage. Such an argument does not
necessarily prove the non-messianic dual-fulfillment
viewpoint at all.l9 The major
question raised by the context is that of the
preservation of the threatened throne of
David, and the forthcoming sign must answer that
question.
"BEHOLD"
The word hineh ("behold") is used to arrest the attention.
Here, Isaiah uses it to
introduce Immanuel. This form of announcement is
similar to Genesis 16:11 where
Hagar
is addressed, and to Judges 13:5, 7 which is an annunciation to the wife of
Manoah. In all three cases an
unusually important event is signified.
The world “behold”
is merely an interjection, but when used with a
participle hineh
does introduce either a
present or future action.20 The main
question is whether harah
in this verse is a participle.
Young
points out that the regular feminine participle would be horah and concludes that
harah is a verbal adjective.21
Therefore not much weight should be given to the usage of
hineh as expressing any
tense.22 The real importance
of the use of this term seems to be
its bringing attention to the significance of what
is to follow: the virgin and her son.
‘almah
Undoubtedly few words have received more extensive
treatment than the form
Isaiah
used in this passage to represent the girl who was to bear Immanuel. Since the
nineteenth century a great verbal battle has raged
over which translation of this word is
the proper one: "virgin " or
"maiden." The Hebrew definite article h is used in connection
with ‘almah. The usual
English translation of the article, is "the" Lindblom
says: "the
most natural explanation is that a definite woman is
in view.23 Hengstenberg felt that the
relation of hineh to the article in ha 'almah is
best explained by the present tense of the
context, so that, the girl is present to the
inward perception of the prophet.24 It is unlikely
that the prophet meant merely any woman when he
specified "the" ‘almah.25
Young has followed Alexander in maintaining that
Isaiah does not necessarily use
the article to denote some well-known virgin, but
rather in the generic sense, some
particular yet unknown, person.26
Whoever this girl is, Isaiah must be aware enough of
her distinctiveness to specify "the" ‘almah; therefore,
when one attempts to identify
Immanuel,
he should
ISAIAH'S IMMANUEL 7
remember that he too is some definite person and
not merely a vague abstraction. ‘Almah
and Immanuel are both seen by Isaiah as being real
individuals.
The meaning of ‘almah has been much debated, but
all agree that it at least means
a girl or young woman above the age of childhood
who has arrived at sexual maturity.
The
more commonly used word for "virgin" in the Old Testament is bethulah. Many
have
contended that if Isaiah had meant to say
"virgin" he would have used bethulah,
and since
he did not we should reject the interpretation of
‘almah as
"virgin."27 Gray states that "it
asserts neither virginity nor the lack of
it."28
However, Dewart long
ago rightly advised that the use of a word, not its
etymology, determines its meaning.29
Though it is true that ‘almah
is not the common
word for virgin, its employment always denotes a
virgin. The word 'almah
occurs in
Scripture five times in the plural and four
times in the singular. In Song of Solomon 1:3
and 6:8 the ‘alamoth are distinguished from
"queens" and "concubines" as the virgins of
the harem. In Psalm 68:26; 46:1 and I Chronicles
and "players" does not specify that they
are virgins, but neither does it imply that they are
not. In Genesis 24:43 we are told that Rebekah is
an ‘almah
and that she has not had
sexual relations with any man. She is also called a bethulah. It is
apparent, then, that the
word ‘almah may suitably describe a girl who is a virgin. In
Exodus 2:8, Miriam is also
described as an ‘almah who is living at home.
The only passage really in question
is Proverbs 30:19, where some try to relate
adulterous connotations to the ‘almah mentioned there. The writer
of the proverb
expresses four things that are "too
wonderful" for him: the way of an eagle in the air; the
way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in
the midst of the sea; and the way of a
man with a ‘almah. In verse 20 he then contrasts the evil woman to the
virtuous maiden.
Unfortunately,
Young interpreted this reference as to an evil girl, who is, nevertheless,
not married.30 But the passage here
indicates nothing evil about the "way of a man with a
maid." The writer parallels it to the natural
events of a bird in flight, a snake on a rock
and a ship at sea. These things amaze him as does
the way of a man with a maid. The
meaning here is obviously that of the natural
attraction and affection of men for girls. The
expression is not one of lust, but of the mystery
of wonderful human affection. As a bird
takes to the air and a snake to the rocks and a ship
to the sea, so does a man to a ‘almah.
The
juxtaposition of the next verses by the compiler provides a contrast between
the
natural blessing of the virtuous maiden and the
evil of the adulterous woman. Therefore,
the picture here should be interpreted as that of a
virgin maid.
Biblical usage of ‘almah
is clearly never that of a married woman, but always of
an unmarried one. In non-Biblical usage a parallel
may be drawn from the marriage
between Nikkahl and Yarih in the Ras Shamra tablets.31 Nikkal
is designated once by the
exact etymological counterpart of 'almah (glmt) and once by
the cognate of bethulah
(btlt).
Therefore, it appears that the two terms are used synonymously in the Ras Shamra
literature. Though glmt not the common word for
"virgin" in Ugaritic either, it is never
used of a married woman and seems well suited for
application to a woman who is not
yet married. Also, in the "Legend of Keret" the marriage of Keret
to Hry shows that the
term glmt is applied to Hry before the
8
GRACE
JOURNAL
wedding, but is never used to describe her
afterwards. Thus, pre-Isaianic, and even pre-
Mosaic
usage show that the use of ‘almah instead of bethulah in
Isaiah
prove that the woman was not a virgin, but on the
contrary it seems to prove that she was
indeed one.32
Consider also that the ordinary word for
"virgin" (bethulah)
does not itself
guarantee by its usage that its referent is in
fact always a virgin. In Deuteronomy 22:19
and Joel 1:8 bethulah refers to a married
woman. Therefore, the term bethulah does not
itself give absolute certainty that the maiden is
always a virgin.33 If Isaiah wished to use
a word that would exactly express his intention,
the use of ‘almah
would better signify
absolute virginity than would the more common
term bethulah.
It is quite obvious that if
Isaiah
intended to conveys a prediction of the virgin-birth he chose the right word,
not an
improper one.
There is no "basis for asserting that he should have used another
word in
place of ‘almah, for usage indicates that ‘almah was the most correct term
to use to
signify an unmarried virgin.34
TIME OF ACTION IN V. 14
It is quite important to determine whether the
verbal elements of this passage
indicate a future or present time. The standard
translation has been: "shall conceive and
bear a son” (KJV). Dillmann
tried to hold out for acceptance of the usage as future and,
indeed, it was felt by most earlier interpreters of
the "messianic" view of the passage that
their position rested upon the future tense.33
However, it has been demonstrated by many
that the tense is present, and this has only further
strengthened the "messianic" interpretation
of the passage and not weakened it.
The contextual usage of harah makes it difficult to
interpret this phrase in the
future tense. The future would only be valid if the
participle were used with hineh.
However,
the ordinary participial form would be horah. The form harah is neither a verb
nor a participle, but a feminine adjective
connected with an active participle ("bearing")
and denotes that the scene is present to the
prophet's view.36 This usage is similar then to
the annunciation of the Angel of the Lord to Hagar
in the wilderness: "Behold! thou art
pregnant and wilt bear a son.” (Gen. 16:12).37 Thus, Isaiah's formula for announcing this
birth is not uncommon to Scripture.
It is quite obvious that the verbal time
indicated here should be taken as a present
tense, and so most since Lowth
have agreed.38 The concept of the time element involved
is very important to the interpretation of the
passage. If the word 'almah
means "virgin"
and if this ‘almah is already pregnant and
about to bear a son, then, the girl is still a
virgin, even though she is a mother. Consider the
contradiction if this passage is not
referring to the only virgin birth in
history--that of Jesus Christ. The virgin is pregnant!
How
can she still be a virgin and be pregnant at the same
time? The implication is that
this child is to be miraculously born without a
father and despite the pregnancy, the
mother is still considered to be a virgin. The word ‘almah ("virgin") implies a present
state of virginity just as the word harah implies a
present state of pregnancy. If the verbal
action were in the future tense there would be no
guarantee that the virgin who
would (in the future) bear a son, would still be a
virgin, and not a wife.39 But if a "virgin"
"is with child" and is obviously both a virgin and a
mother, we cannot escape the
conclusion that this is a picture of the virgin
birth.40
ISAIAH'S IMMANUEL 9
If the 'almah
is to be seen as marrying, losing her virginity, then conceiving and
bearing a son, we should have expected ‘ishah if the
marriage were contemplated before
conception.41 The adjective points to
the state of the ‘almah’s
pregnancy as if it had
already begun, so that Gundry concludes:
"we must understand that she conceives and
bears in her status as ‘almah."42
With the above considerations, the question of
the identity of the "virgin" is
settled, for only Mary the mother of Jesus can
meet the qualifications to fulfill this
prophecy. The virgin is not the prophet's wife,43 the wife
of Ahaz,44 the wife of
Hezekiah,45 nor some unknown by-stander.46 She
is the only Virgin-Mother history or
Scripture
has ever recorded. Only direct "Messianic" interpretation of Isaiah
7:14 does
justice to the content of the passage. What need
is there for seeing a dual-fulfillment and
who from Scripture can qualify for it? Let
interpreters no longer wallow in the quagmire
of immediacy, but see the true intention of this
passage.
IMMANUEL
The main thrust of Isaiah's statement is
undoubtedly the name of the child:
‘imanu’el (“God
with us").
According to the consistent usage in Isaiah, such names
indicate what the person is or what he
represents, rather than merely being his proper
name.47 Therefore, the name, in
its proper designation, was not arbitrary but characteristic
of the individual.48 If we identify "Immanuel" messianically, as the foregoing evidence
indicates we should, then, the name may be taken
to mean that God will personally be
among men in the person of Immanuel.
The child Immanuel has been interpreted many
ways: as Ahaz's son, Hezekiah;49
as a mythical hero;50 the prophet's son
(either Mahar-shalal-hash-baz or a third son);51
the
mere abstraction of God's blessing upon Israel.52
Stenning even tried to read-out
‘imanu'el
from the text by offering the variant yisra’el.53 However,
the Dead Sea Scroll of
Isaiah
(1QIsa) clearly
supports the reading: "Immanuel" and wipes out Stenning's
so-
called evidence.
The power and person of Immanuel as he is seen
in the Prince of the four names
in chapter nine demand someone far beyond human
imperfection. Because of the close
association of Immanuel with the land in chapter
eight and the description of his bringing
peace to the land we see one of divine ability.
The purpose of Immanuel as a sign seems to be as
a guarantee of the perpetuity of
the endangered throne of David. In some way his
birth will indicate deliverance and hope
for the Davidic line. Ahaz
was given the promise that
overcome his land. Ahaz
was told by Isaiah that before the child could grow to discern
right from wrong (2-3 years?) the
invaders. If the prophecy points to the
supernatural birth of the Messiah from within
David's
family line, then the question of hope for the Davidic throne is answered and
the
perpetuity of the family line is guaranteed.54
The problem in the strictly
"messianic" interpretation is how this child's early
years can be related to Christ who was born centuries
later. Young replies that the birth
and growth,
10
GRACE
JOURNAL
though in prediction, are a picture of the brief time
until destruction will come upon
‘almah
as though she already existed, pregnant
and bearing the child and spoke in the
present tense though the event was yet in the
future.56 Isaiah speaks so confidently of the
certainty of his prediction that he speaks of the
child as if he already exists and carries
over the "present condition" of the vision
to the contemporary situation. The infancy of
the child serves to symbolize the fact that
lived, but ultimately will be far greater because of Ahaz's sin.57 Therefore, the prophecy
does have significance and relevance, to Ahaz; he is to avoid the attempted alliance with
The feature of Old Testament prophecy is that it
often compresses chronology in
its viewpoint of events by connecting events in
picture that are actually separated in
history. The conditions more immediately
relating to Isaiah's day prevailed in the land
until Immanuel’s day. Isaiah sees with eyes of faith
the future birth of Immanuel as a
present reality. Though the name "God with
us" does not alone prove the deity of
Immanuel
the wider context of chapters nine and eleven make this fact clear. Culver
warns: "Too often expositors have sought to
explain one portion of the prophecy without
the other."58 However, when one
considers the full context the picture of Immanuel is
much more definite and complete and provides a
better indication of how the New
Testament
interprets the single passage in Isaiah 7:14.
The Child in chapter nine is the coming ruler of
same as the Immanuel child as the context shows. The
child's four titles provide a
thorough picture of him. The Massoretic
accentuation supports the concept of these titles
being four, each consisting of two members:59
PELE yoetz EL gibbor abi AD sar
SHALOM.
These titles are actual descriptions of the
ruler rather than titulary epithets.60 He
is
a wonderful counsellor,
the mighty God, the father of eternity and the Prince of Peace.
The term ‘el
gibor is most significant since it indicates
deity.
Gibor means "hero" and in
Canaanite
literature is used interchangeably between men and gods. But in this passage
its use is specified by ‘el so that it means either "a God of a hero" (appositional
genitive) or "a heroic God"
(adjective). In either case the description indicates divinity.
This
child, Immanuel, then to be the "Mighty God" Himself and, therefore,
literally "God
with us."
Consider also the reference to the "shoot
from the stump" in chapter eleven.
Immanuel
has been foretold coming as the virgin's son to rule over
throne of David. But now, in this passage we are given
the proper sequence of events. His
actual coming is to be delayed. The tree of David shall
be cut down as the result of
Ahaz's unbelief, but a shoot will spring forth from
the rootstock of Jesse and flourish
again. The perpetuity of the Davidic throne that so
threatened the worried Ahaz was in
God's sovereign control. He alone could preserve
it. But so hopeless was the condition of
only a felled tree with only its geza’ ("rootstock," "stump”) remaining. But from that
stump a twig will sprout and from the roots a branch
will flourish
ISAIAH'S IMMANUEL 11
again. That flourishing will accomplish the true
purpose of God for David's throne: it will
bring righteousness and faithfulness and the
destruction of the wicked (v. 4, 5).61
need not fear, for the time will come when God's
King will sit on the throne. All
indications of the full context of the "Book of
Immanuel" (ch. 7 -12) are that we are
pointed to the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son
of God.
Finally, a word is in order about Matthew's
quotation of Isaiah 7:14 as relating to
the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary. On the basis
of the foregoing study it hardly seems
necessary even to consider those critics who have
denied any validity to Matthew's
interpretation.62 One cannot deny the force
of Matthew's statement in
states that Isaiah predicted the virgin birth of
Christ.
In concluding his study of Matthew's use of the
Old Testament, Gundry says of
this passage that in view of the meaning of ‘almah, the
connection of the prediction to the
line of David, and the frequency of individual
messianic prophecies throughout Isaiah,
the "messianic" interpretation is much
preferred for it reveals the Messiah about to be
born (
Luke 24:24-27 and 44-47 tell us that Christ
Himself taught His disciples the Old
Testament prophecies concerning Himself. Where did Matthew get
the idea that Isaiah
the matter of the interpretation of Isaiah's
Immanuel be settled. He is not merely a sign of
his own times, but He is the Sign of the
Ages--Jesus Christ, "God with us."
DOCUMENTATION
1. For a discussion of the development of these
trends see
Interpretation of Isaiah
2. The most recent
commentary on Isaiah declines to take a definite position. Cf. H.
Leupold, Exposition of Isaiah, Vol. I. (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1968), pp.153-60.
Young's influence, however, may already be seen
in the comments of two writers
on the prophets who follow
his lead in interpreting Isaiah 7:14. These, however, are
not commentaries as such.
Cf. S. Schultz, The Prophets Speak (
& Row, 1968), pp. 107, 108; H. Freeman, An Introduction to the Old Testament
Prophets (Chicago: Moody Press,
1968), pp. 203-209.
3. Some have argued that it stops at 9:7, but
the wider section has been effectively sub-
stantiated by J. Lindblom, A Study on the Immanuel Section in Isaiah
(
Gleerup, 1958), pp. 3-5.
4. For a discussion of
the minor variations in typical Semitic writing and comparative
narration see G. D. Young, Qudtestamentische Studien, Deel VIII, 1950, pp. 291-
99.
5. Cf. E.Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings
(
Eerdmans. 1951),
pp. 120 ff., for a discussion of the chronology of the period.
Also, Glazebrook,
12 GRACE
JOURNAL
Studies in
the Book of Isaiah
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), p. 42, accepts the
735-34 date, saying
that the historical context allows us to fix the date with
"unusual
accuracy.”
6.
Cf. R.S.V., "in league with."
The phrase cannot mean "lighting upon" (as an attack)
in this situation. Cf. E. Kraeling, “The Immanuel Prophecy,” Journal of Biblical
Literature, 50 (1931), p. 277 n.
7.
This helpful note is pointed out by W. Wordworth, En-Roeh: the
Prophecies of Isaiah
the Seer. (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1939), p. 73.
8.
Cf. E. Young, The Book of Isaiah,
Vol. I, N. I. C. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965),
p. 271 n. He takes
p. 271 n. "good is God." For an
equivalent usage see I Kings
“good is Rimmon ").
10.
J. Raven, Emmanuel (London: Longmans,
Reader and Dyer, 1872), p. 10. This rare
volume is very helpful in
discussing the Isaiah seven passage.
11.
Many commentators have emphasized the significance of this challenge by
providing
their own translation: G. S.
Smith, "If ye have not faith, ye cannot have staith
Luther, "Glaubet ihr nicht, so bleibet
ihr nicht”; J. McFadyen, "No Faith, no
fixity.” Quoted in A. R.
Gordon, The Faith of Isaiah (
1919), p. 62 n. Such attempts have prompted this writer to
try his own hand: "If
you will not confide, then
you will not abide!"
12.
Cf. Brown, Driver and Briggs, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Oxford: University Press, 1907), p. 486.
13.
Cf. E. Young, Studies in Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1954), p. 156.
14.
Fausset says it implies a "miraculous
token." Cf. Jamiesson, Fausset
and Brown,
Commentary
on the Whole Bible
(
Kraeling op. cit.,
believes that "something unusual" is to be looked for here.
J. A. Alexander The Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah (
Putnam, 1846), pp. 111-112, ever has shown that
the term "sign" does
not necessarily demand a
miracle in every; instance, but that the context
of this passage indicates
one.
15.
However, it may be a miracle (cf. Isa. 38:8; Judg.
Ex.
4:8).
16.
Cf. Young, Studies, p.157. He
speculates that the substitution of this word for
Yahweh was deliberate on the
prophet's part.
17.
Calvin seems to have been the first to point this out. Cf. J. Calvin, Commentarii in
Isaiam prophetam (
18.
Young, Studies, p. 158, regards the
address as being to all the nation, but Alexander;
op. cit., provides a much more convincing argument for
the house of David
which was implicated by Ahaz's unbelief.
19.
For further consideration of the significance of the "sign" see below
in this article.
20.
F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old
Testament: Isaiah, Vol. I (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans,
1949), p. 216, regards it as always introducing a future
occurrence
in Isaiah. Yet in Isa. 6:7 this does not seem to be
the case.
21.
Cf. Young, Studies, p. 161. He goes
on to state that a verbal adjective should be taken
as express present
conditions.
22.
Young discusses this term at length in Studies (1954), pp.161-63,but reduces the
significance
of it in his more recent, commentary, The
Book of Isaiah (1965), pp.
284-86.
23.
Op. cit., p. 19.
ISAIAH'S IMMANUEL 13
24. E. Hengstenberg , Christology of the
Old Testament and a Commentary on Messianic
Predictions, Vol. II (Grand Rapids: Kregal,
1956), p. 44.
25. Cf. however, J. Mauchline,
Isaiah 1-39 (New York: Macmillan,
1962), p. 99, who
says,
without supporting proof, that Isaiah merely refers to "some woman."
Others
have
attempted to avoid the definiteness of this phrase by proposing that Isaiah
referred to
the virgin of a popular and contemporary myth. Cf. G. Gray, The Book
of Isaiah, Vol. I, I. C. C. (New
York: Scribner's Sons, 1912), p. 125, who quotes
Gressmann
as saying that there was a popular prophecy of a young child who
would
deliver
this is
totally lacking and even advocates of this view cannot agree upon which
myth Isaiah
followed.
26.
Cf. Young, Studies, p. 164, and Alexander, op. cit., p. 219.
27. For an example, see the Interpreter's
Bible, Vol. V (New York: Abingdon, 1956), p.
218. It is interesting to note that the
exegetical section denies a miraculous virgin
birth, while the expositional
section affirms it on the same page! Perhaps
Kilpatrick forgot to heed Scott's warning that
an "inaccurate translation" of the
LXX by the New Testament must not "prejudice"
our interpretation. It might be
well for the editors to get
together on their hermeneutics!
28.
Gray, op. cit., pp. 126, 27.
29.
Cf. E. Dewart, Jesus the Messiah in Prophecy and
Fulfillment (Cincinrta:ti:
& Stowe, 1891), p. 123.
Therefore, T. Cheyne, The
Prophecies of Isaiah, Vol. I
(New York: Whittaker, 1888), even
saw in his day that we ought not force a
parallel
between 'almah
and elem
("to hide") which is not an actual derivation. He
notes that
the Arabic cognate habat
(“girl ") is not related to habaa ("to hide in a
tent").
30. Young, Studies,
pp.176-77.
31.
For a detailed survey of extra-Biblical occurrences of
'almah and its equivalents cf.
C. Gordon, Ugaritic
Handbook, III, p. 220.
32. This conclusion is also reached by C. Gordon,
"Almah in Isaiah
Bible and Religion, XXI (1953), p. 106. He writes: "The
commonly held view that
'virgin' is
Christian, whereas 'young woman' is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is
that the
Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian
follows
Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14.
33.
Cf. G. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament
(
1964), p. 309.
34.
One cannot help but wonder what the deniers of the virgin-birth prediction
would say:
if Isaiah
had used the term bethulah.
Would their theological presuppositions
cause them
to turn to Joel 1:8 and say that bethulah cannot mean virgin and thus
Isaiah is not predicting a virgin
birth?
35.
Cf. A. Dillmann, Das
Prophet Jesaia (Leipig:
1890), p. 70.
36. For a detailed discussion of the use of harah see
Alexander, op. cit., p. 121 and
Young, Studies, pp. 161, 62. Young concludes that "the adjective
should be taken
as
expressing present condition, unless there are compelling reasons to the
contrary.
Such reasons are not present in Isaiah 7:14. . . ."
37.
J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah
I-XXIX (
1900): p. 56, similarly translates
this passage: is with child (present) and shall
bear
(future).
14
GRACE
JOURNAL
38.
Cf. R. Lowth, Isaiah
(Boston: Buckingham, 1815), p. 70. He translated this
passage
"Behold, th virgin conceiveth, and beareth a son. . . ." H.Cowles,
Isaiah: with
notes (
words rendered ‘shall
conceive' and 'shall bear' are in the present tense, meaning
is with child and is
bringing forth. . . the first is strictly a verbal adjective denoting
a state of
pregnancy,"
39.
This is how G. Archer, "Isaiah," The
Wycliffe Bible Commentary (
Press, 1962), pp. 617, 18, tries to accept the
meaning of ‘almah
as "virgin" but
sees a dual-fulfillment of
the passage in that Isaiah has lost his first wife and now
will take a virgin to wife
who will (in the future, as his wife) bear him a son. Of
course, there no evidence that
Isaiah lost his first wife and later remarried.
40.
This conclusion is mildly adopted by Young, Studies,
p. 163, but should be more
strongly pressed as the key
argument in this discussion as it has by
Isaiah. Immanuel: Sign of His Times or the Sign of the Ages? Master's Thesis
presented to
48-51 and by R. .H.
Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St.
Matthew’s
Gospel (Leiden:
E. J. Brill 1967), pp. 226, 21. This latter work is an excellent
and overwhelmingly
scholarly monograph that should be given thorough
consideration by the reader.
41.
Cf. Gundry, p. 226, and O. Procksch, Jesaia I (
42.
Ibid.
43.
So Archer, op. cit., p. 618.
44.
So Gray, op. cit., p. 126.
45.
Knight, op. cit., pp. 309, 10, gets credit for this unusual view. He
sees Hezekiah’s
son as Immanuel. But
Manasseh was anything but "God with us."
46.
Cf. S. Mowinckel, He
That Cometh (New York: Abingdon, 1954), p. 111. He is so
strong on
this point that he makes a direct Christological interpretation "out of
the
question.
Why? He adds, "because the sign is intended to
make Ahaz believe
absolutely
in Yahweh, surrender himself to Him in complete trust and obedience,
and in
virtue of his choice decide to adopt the right attitude in the contemporary
situation.
. . . “ If this were the case, why did not the sign
produce this result?
Where is any evidence of Ahaz's "faith, "surrender," "complete
trust," or
"obedience"?
The evidence negates the argument. Ahaz rejected the
sign and
sought
47.
Cf. C. Gordon, Introduction to Old
Testament Times (Ventor,
Press 1953), p. 210.
48.
Cf. the excellent discussion on the Hebrew use of proper names by C. von Orelli, The
Prophecies
of Isaiah
(Edinburgh: T.. & T. Clark, 1895), p. 53.
49.
So J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in
57. To take this position, though,
he must disregard the chronological data
showing
Hezekiah to be already born when the prophecy was delivered.
50.
So R. Kittel, Die
hellenistische Mysterienrellgion
und das Alte Testament (
1924), pp. 1-80. He tries to connect the child
eating "curds and honey" in v. 15
with Egyptian mythology that
eventually found its way into the Canaanite and
Greek "mystery religions.
"
51.
Ct. Archer, op. cit., p. 618.
52.
Ct. Gray, op. cit., p. 124.
53.
Ct. Stenning , The Targum of Isaiah (London: Oxford: University Press,
1949), p. 25.
ISAIAH'S IMMANUEL 15
54. Cf. G. Jelf, Messiah Cometh (London: Innes & Co., 1899), p. 120. He
states: "the
prophecy evidently points to a
supernatural birth within David's family. ..."
55.
Young, Studies, pp. 196-98. He
writes: "the language of the prophecy is filled with
mystery and even obscurity. . .
but is language of profound and beautiful
symbolism. "
56. Cf. K. Yates, Essentials of Biblical Hebrew (New York: Harper & Row, 1954), pp.
134, 35, for a discussion of the "Perfect
of Prophecy" used by the prophet to portray
confidence in the certainty of the
fulfillment of his prediction.
57.
This interpretation recognizes the reference to "butter and honey"
(v. 15) as indicating
impoverishment. Gray, op. cit.,
p. 124, sees it as referring to prosperity; Machline,
op. cit., p. 99, tries to
relate it to Egyptian or Babylonian mythology. However,
W. E. Vine, Isaiah:
Prophecies, Promises, Warning (London: Oliphants,
1953),
pp. 35, 36, has pointed to the context noting
that instead of a prosperous farm
there is only "a young
cow and two sheep," and instead of a flourishing vineyard,
only "briers and
thorns." Alexander, op. cit., p.
114, also agrees that the picture
here is one of desolation.
58. R. Culver, "Were the Old Testament
Prophecies Really Prophetic?" in Can
I Trust
My Bible? (Chicago: Moody Press,
1963), p. 104. See his excellent discussion of
the
Immanuel prophecy.
59. The telisha in pl’ is the smallest of all disjunctive
accents; the geresh
in smu is
stronger than both of them; but
the zakeph
in gibor is
the greatest divider in the
sentence. For the best detailed
discussion of the use of accents in this passage
see Delitzsch,
op. cit., p. 250.
60. Thus the Hebrew concept of kingship is not
based on the Egyptian influence of
titulary titles of the pharaohs as is maintained by
A. Alt, Kleine Schriften,
II, pp.
219f. For a
scholarly and convincing criticism see K. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and
Old Testament(Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966), pp. 106-11. He shows
that the
Hebrew titles are actually more
parallel in usage to the Ugaritic epithets of
Niqmepa,
who is described as: "Lord of justice," "master of the (royal)
house,"
"protector,"
and "builder."
61.
Notice the close parallel between ch. 9 and ch. 11. The Lord will give this ruler
wisdom, perception, counsel,
might, knowledge, etc. He has the same qualities as
the "gift-child."
62. For example cf. Interpreter's Bible, V, p. 218, where the writer states: "that
he
(Matthew) used these (O. T. quotes) without
particular regard to their meaning in
their original context is
clear. . . the New Testament's use of Isa.
an inaccurate translation
of the Hebrew text."
63.
Gundry, op. cit., p.227. His work is
an excellent defense of the validity of Matthew's
use of O.
T. quotations in a Messianic context.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu