Criswell Theological Review 6.2 (1993) 223-235
[Copyright © 1993 by
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
'ALMAH PROPHECY IN THE
CONTEXT OF ISAIAH 7-12
JOHN N. OSWALT
Asbury Theological Seminary
Isaiah
studies
these days. Does biblical prophecy contain within itself the
idea of
prediction of the distant future? For much of the Church's his-
tory this has been taken as a given. Accurate
prediction was the sign of
inspiration.1 Generally speaking, this view prevailed until the middle
of the
last century, when prophecy began to be seen primarily as con-
frontation with the social and religious status quo.
The name of Julius
Wellhausen is
especially associated with this new view. In the middle
years of
this century there was some swinging back of the pendulum
so that
as recently as 1987 J. E A. Sawyer could say that the belief
in the
Bible that the prophets could accurately predict the future
[whether they actually did or not!] was
an established fact.2 Yet, a year
before
Sawyer's book appeared another book was published which--
if I
judge the spirit of the times correctly--more accurately expresses
present
directions. This is J. Barton's The Oracles of God in which he
argues at
length that the biblical understanding of the prophets as
predictors of
the future is actually an imposition of a post-exilic and
intertestamental understanding upon the earlier documents.
For Bar-
ton, Wellhausen's understanding of the nature of prophecy is
correct.
1 See, for instance, the
arguments of J. Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament
(New York: 1914) 455-60.
2 J. F: A Sawyer, Prophecy
and the Prophets of the Old Testament (
224 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
It is very difficult to counter arguments like Barton's because
whenever one
refers to evidence from the text, the chances are that
the
evidence will be disallowed as reflecting a late stage of the tradi-
tion. Nevertheless, it must still be pointed
out that it is God's capacity
to
predict the future through the prophets which forms the backbone
of
Isaiah's lawsuit against the gods found in Isaiah 40-48. Over and
over God
through the prophet challenges the gods to bring forward
evidence to
show that just once they have done what is characteristic
of Him:
specifically predicted not merely the events, but the pattern
of
events which have subsequently occurred as predicted.3 B. Duhm,
in his
well-known commentary, says that only one who was quite un-
familiar with
pagan religion could make such an overblown state-
ment. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge
of Babylonian
religion
would surely know that the gods regularly predicted the
future.4 But the fact is, Isaiah's statements are neither naive nor over-
blown. As
C. Westennann points out, we look in vain in the non-
biblical
literatures for anything approximating the duration and
specificity of
the prophecies of the exile, for instance.5 In fact, the pa-
gan oracles were noteworthy for their
ambiguity. Most of the time
they
could be taken in several ways. Thus, whatever happened, it
could be
argued that the oracle was correct.6
But even if we recognize this characteristic ambiguity, if Isaiah
were
merely saying that the gods had never predicted the outcome of
some
event correctly, Westermann's argument would be open
to ques-
tion. Anyone familiar in any way with the
ancient world could have
surely
pointed to some case of that happening. What Isaiah is clearly
talking
about has to do with what Westermann saw. Isaiah is
talking
about the
prediction of a pattern of specific events shaping the course
of
history out into the far-distant future. It is this which the gods
could not
even begin to duplicate, as the inspired prophet well
knew.7,8
3 Cf. Isa 41:21-24; 43:8-10; 44:6-8; 45:21; 46:8-10; 48:5,14-16.
4 Das
Buch Jesaia (
5 C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: a Commentary (
G. E.
Wright, The Book of Isaiah (
6 Two
well-known examples are the oracle to Croesus and the one regarding the
Persian threat to the city of
ing lost to refer to the Persians, and
therefore inferred that he would triumph. After he
lost the
battle, it was declared that the empire being referred to was Croesus'.
Similarly,
when the
oracle declared that the Athenians would be saved by "the wooden wall; it
was
assumed that the reference was to the walls around the city. Later, when the
Greek
fleet had
removed the threat of attack by destroying the Persian fleet, it was declared
that
"the wooden wall" must have referred to the fleet. See Botsford and Robinson's
Hellenistic History, rev. D. Kagan (New York: 1969) 102,
147.
John N. Oswalt: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE '
I would like to argue that Isa
terns and,
as such, supplies evidence for exactly the kind of thing
Isaiah, and
orthodox Christianity, have insisted proves both the
unique
transcendence of God and the inspiration of Scripture.9 This
is not
a matter of mere academic interest because of what the New
Testament
does with that prediction. If the event is nothing more
than the
insightful reading of the signs of the times coupled with
religious
exhortation, which Matthew has ingeniously appropriated
to
support his convictions concerning the tremendous importance of
Jesus
Christ, then a very great deal is at stake.
Historically, those who have espoused positions like that just de-
scribed have
been divided into two camps: believers and unbelievers.
The
unbelievers (like A Comte and, more recently, J. Hicks10), have
simply seen
the church's position as an exercise in mass delusion. The
believers
(like G. A. Smith 11) have argued that while the original intent
had
nothing to do with the NT, the NT writers were providentially
7
Thus, Isaiah's use of the terms "former things" (41:22; 43:9; 44:7,
etc.) is signifi-
cant. B.
Childs believes this is "II Isaiah" speaking of "I
Isaiah's" predictions, as in 38:6
and
39:5-7 (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture [Philadelphia:
1979] 329-30).
More
plausibly, R. E. Clements ("The Unity of the Book of Isaiah," Interpretation
36
[1982] 117-29)
and C. Stuhlmueller (" 'First and Last' and
'Yahweh-Creator' in Dt.-Is.,"
CBQ 29 [1967] 495-511) believe it refers to
the Exodus events (the importance of the
Exodus
events as a paradigm for understanding the return from Exile in Isaiah 40-55 is
widely
recognized). But I believe even this is too limited; I am confident that all of
God's
promises from
Abraham through Moses and David to Hosea are in the prophet's mind.
How can
such
promises and preserved it against all the odds by wondrously fulfilling those
promises
while giving even greater ones could either forget them or could be just one
more of
the gods (40:27; 43:11-12)?!
8 This
insight has bearing upon the significance of the Cyrus prophecy for our un-
derstanding of the authorship of the book of Isaiah.
Surely the centerpiece for Isaiah's
claims for
the uniqueness of the Lord is the Cyrus prophecy. "Have the gods ever made
this kind
of prediction? Of course not!" If indeed the
prediction was penned 125 years
before
Cyrus was born, then the claim was absolutely correct. On the other hand, if,
as
those who
support multiple authorship claim, the "prediction" of Cyrus' victory
was
only made
after Cyrus had begun his conquests, there is, in fact, nothing unique about
Isaiah's predictions, and his arguments are indeed dependent upon
misuse of logic. For
the
claim that Isaiah's predictions were only made after the emergence of Cyrus,
see
C. R North, The Second Isaiah (
9 Two
examples of OT theologies which see the promise element as the organiz-
ing principle in OT thought are G. von Rad's Old Testament Theology (2 vols.
1962), and W Kaiser's Toward an Old Testament Theology
(Grand Rapids: 1978). The
former sees
promise/fulfillment as the general scheme which shapes the emerging the-
ology. The latter more correctly, in my view,
sees the specific promises of the OT, and
their
outworking, as expressing the plan of God for the saving of the race.
10 The
Myth of God Incarnate (
11 The
Book of Isaiah (2 vols., The Expositor's Bible,
226 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
guided in
their discovery of links between the OT and NT. The early
Fundamentalists
were surely right in their insistence that neither of
these
positions did justice to the Biblical claims.12
This is not the place to enter into a defence
of the orthodox posi-
tion on prophecy and fulfillment. But it is
the place to register a note
of
concern. Recently the "believers" position which I have described
above
seems to have begun to gain currency among the descendants of
the
Fundamentalists, the Evangelicals. In various ways it is being said
that
imaginative reflection upon the inspired texts in which connec-
tions to ones own time are found, although
those connections were not
originally
intended, is consistent with a high view of inspiration.13
Thus, it has
been argued that both propositions are true: Isa 7:14
bears no
reference to the heaven-sent Messiah; Matt
rantly inspired when it says that the virgin
birth of Christ was "to
fulfill what
the Lord had spoken by the prophet."14 The only way such
a
logical contradiction can be maintained is to say that the NT writers
did not
mean by "fulfill" what the English word normally means.
Frankly,
this looks like sleight-of-hand and does not give confidence in
the
argument. One must ask why a more correct translation of pleiro-
mai has never come into use if that is the
case. No, the New Testament
writer
believes, and wishes his readers to believe, that Isaiah pre-
dicted the virgin birth of the Messiah and that
that prediction was
completed,
fulfilled, in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The choice
before us
is either to accept or reject that claim. The Fundamentalists
were
correct in insisting that there is no middle way.15
But is it possible to accept Matthew's claim? Even if we grant
that such
long-distance prediction is possible under divine inspira-
tion, is there genuine reason to believe that
it took place? Does not a
careful
historical-critical investigation of the text in the light of nor-
12 See
the discussion of J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth
of Christ (
287-94, a classic treatment of the passage.
13 This
understanding has gained impetus through the study of the kind of exege-
sis done
at
known in
one form as Pesher, and in another as Midrash, was engaged in is clear. What
is not
clear is whether it was the only kind of exegesis used, and more to the point,
why
the
literary links between it and the NT writings are so few. Barton's work (op.
cit.) re-
lies
heavily upon the assertion that this was the method of NT exegesis.
14 A
recent statement of such a position is that of J. Walton, "What's in a
Name?"
JETS 30:3
(1987) 289-306. His
arguments are used as a backdrop for my own below.
15
Walton's attempt to solve the problem with reference to the OT use of names
falls
far
short. He argues that children are given names in the expectation that those
names
will
somehow become significant, but without any assurance of what that significance
will
be. He
sees this as analogous to OT prophecy. First of all, this does not apply to Isa 7:14
as he
sees it, since he has already deprived that passage of any larger predictive signifi-
cance. But beyond that, this model of
open-ended, and amorphous, possibilities does not
correspond to
what the prophets claimed for themselves. See the arguments above.
John N. Oswalt: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE '
mal
Biblical usages suggest that the passage was only intended for
Ahaz' time? Certainly some weighty arguments can be
mounted in de-
fense of such a position. Especially strong is
the evidence from within
the text
itself that the prediction was to be fulfilled, in one sense at
least,
within Ahaz' own lifetime. But does that realization
demand
that a
later, fuller reference be given up? I think not. When the argu-
ments for limiting the reference are examined,
significant weaknesses
can be
found.16 But of greatest significance, in my opinion, is the evi-
dence of the literary context, and it is to
that which we now turn.
Although most recent commentators do not
regard chaps. 7-12
to
be a
literary unity, there are good reasons to consider the chapters as a
unity of
thought. First of all, they show a very clear demarcation from
what
follows (chap. 13ff.), and a reasonably clear demarcation from
what
precedes (chap. 6).17 Furthermore, when the ideas are considered,
there
seems to be a clear progression of thought extending from Isaiah's
opening
challenge to Ahaz to trust God (7:9) to the closing
hymn of the
redeemed
extolling God's trustworthiness (12:1-6). That progression
moves
through several stages: terror at the Syro-Ephramite threat
16 The
article by Walton cited above lists a number of these arguments. In the in-
terests of completeness those which are not
responded to below will be responded to in
brief form
here. 1) The author asserts that "shall conceive and bear a son" is
incorrect
since harah, "conceive" is an adjective followed
by a ptcp, which combination cannot
have a
future connotation. He cites the comparable phrases in Gen 16:10 and Judg 13:3,
asserting that
there also the word is an adjective and that only the converted perfects in
those
contexts give the future meaning. In fact, the forms are not converted
perfects,
but also
participles (GKC §94f.). Thus, those references, which are clearly future by
con-
text, do
not prove his contention, but precisely disprove it. The future rendering is
en-
tirely appropriate. 2) He asserts that 'ot, "sign," does not connote anything
miraculous.
He makes this assertion
on the basis of three passages, 1 Sam 2:34; Jer
44:29-30; 2 Kgs
19:29. But
this overlooks two important aspects: the general usage of the word and its
specific
context in Isaiah 7. In general, the word is connected with "wonders"
in the
recitals of
the Exodus. The Exodus signs were surely miraculous in nature. This is
brought
closer home by the miraculous sign of the shadow in Isa
38:7-8. But most im-
portant of all is the passage itself in which Ahaz is directly encouraged to ask for a
miraculous sign
as high as heaven or as deep as Sheol. Thus there is
every reason
to
believe that the sign which God eventually gave was miraculous. The
"fulfillment"
which
Walton suggests breathes none of the air of mystery and wonder which is found
in the
passage itself.
17
The lack of agreement among commentators as to whether chap. 6 should be in-
cluded with chaps. 1-5 or 7-12 is an indication
of the chapter's transitional function: in
my
view. Looked at from the perspective of chaps. 1-5,
chap. 6 provides a clear solution
to the
problem posed in those chapters: how can proud, perverse, rebellious.
31; 2:6-4:1;
5:1-30) become clean and holy (4:2-6), the one to whom the nations come to
learn the
law of God (2:1-5)? The answer is that the nation of unclean lips can have an
experience of
God analogous to that of the man of unclean lips. But when chap. 6 is
looked at
from the perspective of chaps. 7-12, there are many ways in which it functions
as an
introduction to those chapters. Like them, it has a firm historical rootage; it provides
a
clear explanation for the blind and stubborn refusal of the promises of God
which
228 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
(7:1-6); refusal to accept God's word. of promise
(7:7-16); the forecast
of
destruction by
people of
God (8:9-9:1); the promise of the child deliverer (9:2-7);
explanation of
the reason for
but
and, as
such, accountable to Him who wields it (10:5-34); (since
destruction is
not the result of
ally
responsible, trustworthy
complete nor
final [
sianic kingdom (11:1-16); the hymn of redemption
(12:1-6; cf. Exod
15:1-18). Thus,
there is a clear thread of continuity which proceeds
from the
opening announcement of terror (7:2) to the final pronounce-
ment of fearlessness (12:2), with each
successive topic growing out of
the
preceding one.
This sense of continuity is enhanced by the recurring treatment of
certain
themes. Some of these are: the house of David (7:2, 13; 9:7; 11:1,
10);
children as signs of threat and promise (7:3, 14; 8:3, 18; 9:6; 11:6,
8);
in his
will to deliver (7:7-9; 8:9-10; 9:1-7;
12:1-6). All
of these reasons argue strongly that, despite a diversity of
literary
forms (poetry, prose, threats, oracles of salvation, etc.18) these
materials have
been put in this particular sequence because they are
intended to
be understood in context with one another.19
This understanding of the contextual unity
of chaps. 7-12 is
significant for
the interpretation of
signalled to us that he understands this passage,
as well as all the rest
of the
materials in the unit, as a part of that larger picture. Thus, to
read this
statement merely from within its immediate context, which
is vv
10-17, would be like interpreting a musical phrase in a sym-
phony in
isolation, without considering the movement in which it
characterize the response in those chapters; it predicts the destruction which
will result
from that
refusal; it sets the stage, with its final glimmer of hope, for the Messianic
promises
which conclude the unit. Thus, any simplistic inclusion or exclusion with
from
either 1-5 or 7-12 is to be avoided. Rather, both segments must be interpreted
in
the
light of that pivotal chapter.
18 For
a highly detailed discussion of the possible literary forms involved, see
O. Kaiser, Isaiah
1-12, a Commentary (
that
someone may yet analyze these forms in still more detail, it is hard to imagine
that
anything but
very diminished returns can come from it. Kaiser already seems to have
gone far
in that direction.
19 P. Ackroyd ("Isaiah 1-12, Presentation of a
Prophet," VTS 29 [1978] 16-48) has
argued that
chaps. 1-5 should be included in the unit as well. Although he makes a good
case, the
argument that chaps. 1-5 have a less restricted usage than this seems stronger.
John N. Oswalt: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE '
occurs, let
alone the larger symphonic structure. This is not to say that
the
larger context provides a warrant for reading a passage in a way
which does
violence to its immediate context, but it does say that exe-
gesis which analyzes the grammar and syntax of
a sentence, or even a
paragraph, in
minute detail, without paying attention to the shaping
influence of
the larger context, is not complete exegesis.
What is the larger message of which Isa
7:14 is a part? Of course,
to
follow the metaphor described above, the largest message is to be
found in
the entire symphonic structure of the book of Isaiah. While a
lengthy
discussion of that topic is not warranted here, neither should
it be
overlooked, for like many of the Biblical books, there is substan-
tial evidence for the conscious shaping of the
whole, and that all which
is
included is included as a part of that whole.20 If I were to express
the
overall
theme in a sentence, it would be this: "The Holy One of Israel
is the
Sovereign of the Nations and the Redeemer of the World': The
book is
about God as Holy, Sovereign Savior. Intertwined with that
dominant
theme is the issue of
bow down
to the humanly-based gods of the nations or will they reveal
the
transcendent God to the nations? Thus, the move is from a people
who, far
from having light for others, grope about in a darkness of their
own
making (
brightness that
all the nations are drawn to the glory (60:1-3).21
Coupled with the question of mission is the whole issue of king-
ship: how
will the Holy King whom Isaiah saw in the
lish His dominion on the earth? How will He
conquer pride,
rebellion, and
oppression? Will He do so with domination and aggres-
siveness, crushing his enemies beneath a mailed
fist? No, he will
come as a
child would, harmless and weak (9:6; 11:3; 42:1-4; 49:7;
52:15-53:3).22
Here is the power of God: to absorb all the evil of a
hopelessly
depraved world, and give back only boundless love and
justice,
free for the taking.
If that is what the larger movement is about, where do chaps.
7-12 fit
into that? What part does this movement play in the larger
structure? In
one sense they are introductory to the entire structure,
20 For
an extended treatment of this subject, see my "The Kerygmatic
Structure of
the Book
of Isaiah" in the festschrift in honor of Dwight Young (Winona Lake, Ind.:
forthcoming) .
21 For a further discussion of
Nations,"
in Through No Fault of Their Own: The Fate of Those Who Have Not Heard,
eds. W
V: Crockett and J. G. Sigountos (Grand Rapids: 1991).
22 To
be sure, there are statements of God's violent destruction of his enemies. In-
terestingly, all of those which occur in extended
treatments are found after chap. 53
(59:15-19;
63:1-6; 66:15-16). Those who reject "the gently flowing waters of Shiloah"
(cf. 8:6),
will have to contend with rushing floodwaters.
230 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
in that
they layout the complete program. There is a sense in which,
once Ahaz has made his fateful choice not to take the radical
step of
trusting God,
the entire sequence of
point on
follows with a certain ineradicable logic. The justice of God
means that
failure to trust Him brings destruction and darkness upon
His people (
be left
in such a condition. In faithfulness to His promises to Abra-
ham and
David, He must deliver
the
people have earned it, but as an expression of his free grace
(
brought down
by God, not
the
power to lift her up again (9:8-10:19; 10:27-34). The power
which will
characterize the coming King will be moral, not political
or
military (11:1-5). In the light of that universal kingdom (11:6-9),
the
truest values of the Exodus will be realized (
may be
said that the great themes of the rest of the book are con-
tained in capsule form in this segment of the
book.23
But there is another sense in which this unit fills a very
specific
place
within the book. That is, it sets the stage for the particular
teachings of
chaps. 13-39. What Ahaz had refused to believe was
that
God was with
him, and his dynasty, and his people in any unique
way. He
had already made his own plans for extricating all of these
from the
threat of Pekah and Rezin
to depose the Davidic monarch
and
place someone else on the throne (2 Kgs 16:5-9). Ahaz would trust
ing God and revealing Him to the nations,
tions and, in so doing, deny God. As noted
above, that decision would
bring
destruction, which would in turn bring redemption and the
Messianic kingdom. But in the theological program of the book, this
segment
serves to introduce a question of major importance. Can God
really be
trusted? Chapters 13-35 provide the data to answer that.
question, and
then chaps. 36-39 show us another Davidic monarch
who, in
a much more serious situation, does trust God and has that
trust
vindicated in a marvelous way.
Thus, in a specific sense chaps. 7-12 have to do with the question
of
"immanu-el": is God really with us in any
way that makes any
23 In
this light, it may be asked if chaps. 1-12 are not the introduction to the
book,
and not
just chaps. 1-5(6), as suggested above. While good arguments can be mustered in
favor of
such a position (cf. Ackroyd, op. cit.), two
important points weigh against it.
First,
chaps. 1-5(6) seem to be much more broadly stated and addressed than do chaps.
7-12. Chaps. 7-12 might be more aptly characterized as preparation for what
follows.
Second,
careful examination of 7-12 in the light of 36-39 suggests that the two
sections
are part
of an inclusio around 13-35 showing that the whole
segment (7-39) is about
God's sovereignty and trustworthiness in the world. See below.
John N. Oswalt: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE '
difference?
Isaiah's answer is that He is presently with us in the
sense that
we can depend on him to deliver us from the threats of
Rezin and Pekah, but also that he will actually be with us as the Mes-
siah. These two promises are inseparable and
interdependent. If God
is not
truly with His people in the affairs of that moment, the lovely
messianic
promises are highly suspect. By the same token, if God can
never be
with His people in actuality, then there is reason to doubt
that His
transcendence can ever be truly overcome on our behalf.
What all of this says is that all the elements of this unit must
be
understood in
light of the emphasis on divine trustworthiness and im-
manence on the people's behalf which
characterizes the unit. This
has a
considerable bearing upon the correct understanding of
Whatever we
might conclude from the paragraph alone, and this is
hardly
unambiguous, the larger context points us to an understanding
which far
surpasses Ahaz' own immediate experience. Just as his
choice was
to have far-reaching consequences for the kingdom of
beyond the
immediate historic context as well.
That the sign does have such significance is supported by the con-
ection of children with both of the messianic
prophecies. This is par-
icularly important with 9:2-7 where the Messiah's
coming is as a
child.24 While the Messiah in 11:1-9 is not specifically called a child,
the
childlike qualities ascribed to him (11:3) and the repeated mention
of
children leading and playing among previously ravenous animals
(11:6, 8)
surely contributes to the same understanding. Can it be
merely
coincidence in a segment where the presence of God among his
people is
central that Immanuel is a child and the Messiah is a child?
I think not.25
In fact, there is every reason to believe that the
language
is
intentional in order to guide the reader to make the association be-
tween the two.26
It should not be inferred from this argumentation that I believe
the
Immanuel prophecy refers solely to the Messiah. As I have stated
24
Efforts to relate 9:6 to the birth of a son to Ahaz,
perhaps even Hezekiah, have
not met
with any wide-spread agreement. The language is too expansive and. cosmic to
be
applied to a human ruler. For a further discussion, see my The Book of
Isaiah, Chap-
ters 1-39 (Grand Rapids: 1986) 246-47.
25 It
may be objected that I have been selective in equating Immanuel with the
Messiah and not either Shearjashub or
Maher-Shalal-has-baz. But the reason for doing
so is
that there is absolutely no mystery about either of those two. They are clearly
said
to be
the children of Isaiah and nothing more is to be said. But a great deal of
mystery
surrounds
Immanuel. His mother is identified with a highly-ambiguous term; his father
is not
mentioned at all; and he is referred as the owner, or at least, a notable
inhabitant
of the
with the
Messiah.
26 So for instance J. Skinner, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah
(
232 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
elsewhere,27 the
statements in
the
lifetime of Ahaz. What we know of Israelite and
Syrian history
confirms
this, in that both
nexed by
likely date
of this prophecy.28 Thus, it seems beyond question that the
prediction was
fulfilled, as intended, during Ahaz' lifetime. In addi-
tion, it seems very likely that it was
fulfilled in Isaiah's own family
through the
birth of his son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz.29 This argument
is
supported by the recurrence of language in
ceived and
bore a son"), by the similarity of the signs,30
and by the
mention of
Immanuel on both sides of the mention of Maher-shalal-
hash-baz. One significance
of this equation is that it clearly means
that if
the ultimate fulfillment of the Immanuel sign is that God will
be with
us in and through a son of David (9:7; 11:1), then the fulfill-
ment in Ahaz' own
time was not the ultimate one.
But even more importantly, it shows us that we should read
17 as part of a larger unit which extends at least as far as 9:7. The
sequence of
thought would be something like this: 1) the prophecy
of
Immanuel (
it is
two-sided (God's presence with us is not a cause for happiness
if we
have rejected that presence), (
the
prophecy in Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:1-4); 4) expansion of that
prophecy with
particular connection to Immanuel (again two-sided),
(8:5-10); 5) further
reflection on the two-sidedness of God's presence,
concluding that
the ultimate significance of the signs was hidden at
that time
(
manuel in the child who would be born to sit
forever on the throne
of
David (9: 1-6). Thus it can be seen that a contextual reading not
only
supports the understanding that there was a fulfillment of the
27 Oswalt, Isaiah, 206-14.
28
"Refuse the evil and choose the good" (v 15) is taken by most
commentators to
refer to a
child's attaining the age of accountability-12 years old.
29 See
H. M. Wolf, "A Solution to the Immanuel Prophecy in Isaiah
91 (1972) 449-56.
30
Walton argues against this supposition on the grounds that the woman in
is
already pregnant, whereas Isaiah's wife is just conceiving. As noted above, the
argu-
ment that the 'almah
is already pregnant rests upon a misreading of the fem. ptcps.
in
Gen
grammatically identical with Isa
the
signs are not the same since saying "mama" and "papa" occur
long before the
twelfth
year. However,
same
time. Clearly that date would be entirely in keeping with the sign. More impor-
tantly, both signs have to do with something the
child can or cannot do by a certain date.
31 Note
the recurrence of "curds and honey" in
continuity of
thought.
John N. Oswalt: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE '
prophecy in Ahaz' own day, but also that that fulfillment was not the
ultimate one.
But what about the specific wording of the
promise in its context?
J. Walton
has set forth some strongly worded arguments against read-
ing 'almah
as "virgin" under any circumstances and has proposed an
understanding of the historical setting which is at least plausible,
although
highly restrictive. What does the use of this word in this
context
imply? Of greatest significance is the air of mystery and ambi-
guity which surrounds the term. If, as Walton
argues, the sign refers
to one
of Ahaz' concubines who is now pregnant and will
shortly give
birth, it
is very hard to explain this language. Why not simply say
"Your
concubine has conceived and will bear a son to you. You shall
call his
name Immanuel. He will eat curds and. . . ." Why not identify
the
father, particularly if it is the Ahaz to whom the
oracle is ad-
dressed? Why
not use the common term for concubine? Why not
identify
whose concubine it is?32 In fact, the text gives no reason at
all to
associate this woman with the court, or with Ahaz. By
its silence
on
these points it specifically points away from that possibility. Wal-
ton is
grasping at straws in order to support his contention that the
NT reading
is simply a midrash on a
misreading of the OT
But if the initial fulfillment of
contended
above, why was that not stated explicitly in
just the
point; it is an initial fulfillment only. If indeed Maher-shalal-
hash-baz' conception, birth, and naming said all that
the sign in
was to
say, then it is very hard, if not impossible, to understand why
woman"
or even "your wife"? On the other hand, if the sign was in-
tended to
point to the birth of Christ, why not use the unambiguous
betulah, "virgin"?
I believe that the answer to both questions lies in the double na-
ture of the sign. It has two historic
contexts: the immediate future
when the
evidence of God's presence would be the defeat of
and
tant future when God would be physically
present among his people
32
Walton's attempt to answer this question by reference to the definite article
on
'almah is very weak. He suggests that Ahaz would not have had so many concubines
but that
if one of them appeared to be pregnant there would have been some comment
about the
situation in the court and that by Isaiah's saying the 'almah,
his hearers
would have
known to whom he was referring. In the first place, there is no reason to as-
sociate 'almah
with a concubine at all. Perhaps the term could have been used to refer
to a
concubine, but that is not the meaning of the term and it would not connote
that
meaning
without some modifier. From that point the argument successively falls in
upon
itself, with each supposition being more questionable than the last.
234 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
either to
purify or to judge (cf. Mal 3:1-5). In the immediate future the
virginity of
the mother was not the issue, but in the distant future
that was
all-important. Thus an ambiguous word was used. Walton is
certainly
correct when he asserts that 'almah does not
mean "virgin."
But he is
wrong when he goes on from that to imply that the word
can
never connote virginity in a given setting. In fact, as he admits,
the word
seems to have to do with adolescence. If we are talking
about an
adolescent female in Hebrew society, there is every reason
to
think that this would be one of the chief connotations of the word.
This
supposition is only confirmed by the Septuagint's use of par-
thenos, "virgin," to translate 'almah.33
In other words, the ambiguous
term is
used purposely so as to support both the immediate and dis-
tant occurrences of the sign. For this same
reason the paternity of the
child is
left unidentified. All of this argues that no short-term fulfill-
ment alone is in view here.
Added to this is the invitation to Ahaz
to make the sign he asks
be ''as
deep as Sheol or high as heaven." This hardly
suggests some-
thing as'
insignificant as the naming of the child of an already preg-
nant concubine.34 To be sure, Ahaz refused to ask, probably because
he had
already made his own plans. But that is all the more reason for
God to make
the sign even more stupendous as a final vindication of
His trustworthiness.
In sum, I believe those who call Isaiah chaps. 7-12 the book of Im-
manuel are correct. At this absolutely critical
point in salvation history
when the
ised land and the Davidic monarch of
breach of
covenant which was to become calcified in his grandson
Manasseh,
and which would issue in the destruction of
complete
outlines of the plan of God for His kingdom needed to be dis-
played.
They are nowhere better done than in the book of Isaiah. And,
33 Walton's attempt to devalue the significance of the LXX reading
rests upon two
pillars: an
unpublished paper of G. L Archer in which he is reported to have argued
that the
LXX translators of Isaiah often used equivalent terms and not exact ones, and
the fact
that parthenos does not always mean
"virgin" in classical Gk. Neither of these
will bear
much weight. Whether parthenos is equivalent
or exact, the question is why it
was used
at all, especially if, as Walton maintains, 'almah
has nothing to do with vir-
ginity. (Machen [op.
cit., 297] makes a similar point but interestingly, insists 'almah
does have
to do with virginity.) Second, as is well known, the LXX meanings are often at
odds with
classical usage. In fact, they must be defined by reference to the Heb. word
they are
translating in many cases! Furthermore, NT meanings, and NT parthenos
defi-
nitely means "virgin," are frequently
dependent upon LXX meanings. Perhaps the NT
usage in
this case is derived from the LXX!
34 Note
that the naming of the child is not even a command, as is that of Maher-
shalal-hash-baz. Surely this would be a self-fulfilling
prophecy and nothing more.
John N. Oswalt: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE '
as
shown above, that display is prepared for in chaps. 7-12. There
God's
trustworthiness is shown, not only in his ability to deliver from
ish them for their faithlessness, but
ultimately and triumphantly from
the
unrighteousness and the wickedness which lie at the root of all this
history. And
how will this be accomplished? By the personal interven-
tion of God in history. This has been the
foundering point of all merely
human
philosophy. We have been terrified of the thought of transcen-
dence. We need a god with us. But our attempts
to make the divine im-
manent have resulted in the loss of any real
transcendence, for we
always
submerge the god into ourselves in order to achieve our tran-
sitory desires. The glory of the Bible in
general and Isaiah in particular
is that
they are able to maintain God's transcendence by demonstrating
that He
can break into the world without becoming the world. He is
able to
be truly with us, in our midst, without being submerged into us.
This is what
"Immanuel" is made to point to in this segment, and this
is what
Jesus Christ means for the world. "God with us" is not merely
a
theological/historical construct; it is a spiritual/material actuality.
The final
confirmation that this segment is preeminently about the
real
presence of the Transcendent with us is found in the final verse of
the
segment: "Shout, and sing for joy, O inhabitant of
your
midst is the Holy One of Israel" (12:6). To restrict the Immanuel
prophecy to a
banal event in Judean history, and to make the NT's
appropriation of it an exercise in literary imagination is to miss the
whole
import of this segment, and indeed, of the book of Isaiah.
This material
is cited with gracious permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu