Isaías 7

Isaías 7

Clarke asks "In what sense then, is Christ God with us? Jesus is called Immanuel, or God with us, in His incarnation; God with us, by the influences of His Holy Spirit, in the holy sacrament, in the preaching of His word, in private prayer. And God with us, through every action of our life, that we begin, continue, and end in His name. He is God with us, to comfort, enlighten, protect, and defend us, in every time of temptation and trial, in the hour of death, in the day of judgment; and God with us and in us, and we with and in Him, to all eternity." Michael Rydelnik (Page 1019ff Moody Bible Commentary) has a simple summary of the ways Isaiah 7:14 has been interpreted: This chapter contains one of the most controversial messianic predictions in the Hebrew Bible. Interpreters differ over a number of issues, such as the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘almah (translated “virgin” [v. 14] in the NASB), the way Isaiah’s sign (v. 14) relates to the context, how the original audience would have understood Isaiah’s words, and Matthew’s intention in citing this passage as a prediction of the virgin birth of Jesus (cf. Mt 1:18–25). As a result of these disputed meanings, there are three primary interpretations of this passage, and even among these three, expositors have their own distinct perspectives. (1) The first approach, held by many traditional Christian interpreters, sees the prophecy as a direct prediction of the virgin birth. Although there are a variety of ways that these interpreters come to this conclusion, they all agree that the word ‘almah means “virgin” and refers to the virgin mother of the Messiah. (2) A second view, frequently held by traditional Jewish scholars and biblical critics, sees the passage as purely historical. In this view, a young woman in the eighth century BC would give birth to a child in a completely natural way. (3) A third explanation of the passage, held by many other Christian interpreters, understands the passage as having dual or multiple fulfillments. These interpreters understand the passage to refer to the natural birth of a child in the eighth century BC. Nevertheless, they contend that this does not exhaust its meaning. Rather, by double fulfillment, typology, and progressive fulfillment, the prophecy also refers to the virgin birth. This commentary will argue for the traditional interpretation, that the passage contains a direct prediction of the virgin birth of the Messiah. R Bruce Compton in THE IMMANUEL PROPHECY IN ISAIAH 7:14–16 AND ITS USE IN MATTHEW 1:23: HARMONIZING HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND SINGLE MEANING summarizes the 3 common modes of interpretation... The crucial question with the Immanuel passage is to explain how the birth of Jesus fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy. The problem comes in harmonizing Isaiah 7:14 as a sign to Ahaz in the eighth century B.C. with Matthew’s use of it as a reference to the birth of Jesus at the close of the first century B.C. Attempts at a solution have generally fallen under one of three approaches. (1) One approach is to take the prophecy in verse 14 as exclusively historical. A young woman, who may or may not have been a virgin at the time of the prophecy, marries and gives birth to a son. Some identify the woman as Isaiah’s wife and the son as Maher-shalal-hash-baz.12 Others opt for the woman to be Ahaz’s wife, Abi, and the son to be Hezekiah.13 In either case, the prophecy in verse 14 has no direct or explicit reference to Jesus. (2) A second approach is to take the prophecy in verse 14 as exclusively messianic. The woman, a virgin, is Mary, and the son is Jesus. Opinion is divided over the meaning of verses 15–16. Some take verses 15–16 as describing the experience of Jesus in the first century B.C./A.D. 14 Others distinguish the reference to Jesus in verse 14 from the child mentioned in verses 15–16 so that verses 15–16 describe the experience of a child in eighth century Judah.15 Regardless, verse 14 refers to the birth of Jesus and has no direct bearing on Ahaz’s immediate circumstances. (3) A third approach is to combine the first two approaches and see something of a double fulfillment. The initial fulfillment takes place with the birth of a child shortly after the prophecy, while the subsequent fulfillment takes place with the birth of Jesus. Proponents explain the relationship between these fulfillments in one of two ways. Some see the relationship as involving a sensus plenior or fuller meaning where Matthew expands the meaning of Isaiah’s words in their original setting to include a reference to Jesus’ conception and birth.16 Others understand the relationship to involve typology, where Matthew takes Isaiah’s words as foreshadowing something beyond their immediate context and applies them to Jesus in a type-antitype relationship.17 John Martin offers the following summary of this controversial section... (See Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament - Page 1048) Most Bible scholars hold one of three views on the virgin in Isaiah 7:14–16: (1) The boy of whom Isaiah wrote was conceived shortly after Isaiah spoke this message. A young woman, a virgin, married and then had a baby. Before he would be old enough to tell the difference between good and evil the northern Aram-Israel alliance would be destroyed. According to this view the woman was a virgin when Isaiah spoke his prophecy but was not when the boy was born because he was conceived by sexual relations with her husband. Some say this child was born to Isaiah (Isa 8:3–4). They point out that Isa 8:1–4 corresponds in a number of ways to 7:14–17. But this view must be rejected because (a) Isaiah’s wife already had a child (Shear-Jashub, Isa 7:3) and so was not a virgin, and (b) the second child born to Isaiah’s wife was not named Immanuel (Isa 8:3). In this view Ahaz would have known this woman, and hearing of the child’s birth and his name Immanuel he would understand that Isaiah’s prophecies were correct. (2) A second view sees the predicted birth as exclusively messianic and the virgin as Mary, Jesus’ mother. It is argued that in Isaiah 7:14 the virgin is said to be with child (lit., “the virgin is or will be pregnant”). It is also argued that Matthew, stressing the fact that Joseph and Mary’s marriage was not consummated till after Jesus’ birth (Matt. 1:18, 25), affirmed that Jesus’ birth fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy (Matt. 1:21–23). Proponents of this view point out that since Isaiah spoke this prophecy to the house of David (Isa. 7:13) and not just to Ahaz himself, the sign was given not just to the king but to the entire kingly line and the entire nation. However, if the fulfillment did not occur until Joseph and Mary’s day, how does the prophecy relate to Isaiah’s point that the Aram-Israel confederacy would soon be defeated? And how does the birth of the Lord Jesus relate to the eating of curds and honey (v. 15) and to the breaking of the alliance before the boy was old enough to know good and evil? (v. 16) Proponents of this view answer that the time is similar: the two years of Jesus’ babyhood (before He would know between right and wrong) point to the same time segment, two years, within which the Aram-Israel threat would be gone. (3) A third view, a combination of the first two, sees the prophecy as directed primarily to Ahaz regarding the breaking of the alliance. The ‘almâh was a virgin when Isaiah spoke his message, but then she would marry and have a baby. When the Aram-Israel alliance was broken the boy would still be young. Centuries later the Holy Spirit led Matthew to quote Isaiah 7:14 as a statement that was also true of a virgin birth (i.e., a birth to a woman who was still a virgin). This is the first of many prophecies about the Messiah given by Isaiah. (See the chart “Messianic Prophecies in the Book of Isaiah.”) The sign must have had some significance for the historical situation in which it was given. The sign involved not only the birth and the boy’s name (Immanuel, “God [is] with us,” would assure the people of God’s presence), but also a designated length of time: before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings … will be laid waste. Within about three years (nine months for the pregnancy and two or three years until the boy would know the difference between good and evil) the alliance would be broken. It was broken in 732 B.C. when Tiglath-Pileser III destroyed Damascus. After Tiglath-Pileser had defeated Aram and put Rezin to death Ahaz went to Damascus to meet the Assyrian monarch (2 Kings 16:7–10). Ahaz liked an altar he saw in Damascus, and had a sketch of it drawn so a similar altar could be set up in Jerusalem. No wonder Isaiah and God were angry with Ahaz. Even after the alliance had been broken by Tiglath-Pileser Judah had no peace. Though Assyria did not defeat Judah, she had to pay Assyria a heavy tribute. Isaiah foretold the consequences of Ahaz’s attitude (Isa. 7:17–25). For another summary of the various interpretations of IMMANUEL see the online article in Anchor Bible Dictionary pages 3832-3836. Behold (02009) (hinneh) is an interjection (= a word in speaking or writing, thrown in between words connected in construction, to express some emotion or passion) often seeks to grab the reader's attention and says something like - Look! Pay attention! Don't miss this next point! Hinneh draws attention to an important fact or action that follows and in a sense demands our attention. It follows that the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 demands every reader's very careful attention. Unfortunately this great passage has been scrutinized and criticized to the the point that the reader might miss the Lord's clear intent (remembering that He is not a God of confusion!) That said there are some legitimate difficulties in the translation and interpretation of this famous passage. Young adds that "hinneh or “behold!” is employed in the Scriptures to announce a birth of unusual importance and significance." (The Book of Isaiah 3 Vol. Edward J. Young) (Young)