> ‎Chapter 8‎ > ‎Chapter 9-10:1-4‎ > ‎Chapter 10:5-34‎ > ‎Chapter 11‎ > ‎Chapter 12‎ > ‎Chapters 13-14‎ > ‎Chapters 15-16‎ > ‎Chapter 17‎ > ‎Chapter 18‎ > ‎Chapter 19‎ > ‎Chapters 20-21‎ > ‎Chapter 22‎ > ‎Chapter 23‎ > ‎Chapter 24‎ > ‎Chapter 25‎ > ‎Chapter 26‎ > ‎Chapter 27‎ > ‎Chapter 28‎ > ‎Chapter 29‎ > ‎Chapter 30‎ > ‎Chapter 31‎ > ‎Chapter 32‎ > ‎Chapter 33‎ > ‎Chapters 34-35‎ > ‎Chapters 36-37‎ > ‎Chapters 38-39‎ > ‎Introduction to the 2nd part of Isaiah‎ > ‎Chapter 40‎ > ‎Chapter 41‎ > ‎Chapter 42‎ > ‎Chapter 43‎ > ‎Chapter 44‎ > ‎Chapter 45‎ > ‎Chapter 46‎ > ‎Chapter 47‎ > ‎Chapter 48‎ > ‎Chapter 49-50:1-3‎ > ‎Chapter 50:4-11‎ > ‎Chapter 51‎ > ‎Chapters 52-53‎ > ‎Chapter 54‎ > ‎Chapter 55‎ > ‎Chapters 56-57‎ > ‎Chapter 58‎ > ‎Chapter 59‎ > ‎Chapter 60‎ > ‎Chapter 61‎ > ‎Chapter 62‎ > ‎Chapters 63-65‎ > ‎Chapter 66‎ >    

 

Summary of Chapter Isaiah 7

When Ahaz was king of Judah, King Resin of Aram and Pekah,
son of Remeliah, King of Israel, tried to fight against
Jerusalem, but could not take it. The king of Judah was told of
this alliance, and king and people were fearful, shaking like
trees in the wind.

Then God told Isaiah to take his son Shear-jasub and to go
out to meet King Ahaz, to tell him to have faith. God promised
the invasion would not succeed. He added that within 65 years
Ephraim, the northern kingdom, Israel, would be shattered. But if
Ahaz did not have faith, he would not stand.

Isaiah then offered Ahaz a sign in the sky or in the depths.
Ahaz refused to ask, as if it would be tempting God. Isaiah then
said: "Is it not enough for you to weary men? Must you also weary
God? The Lord Himself is going to give you a sign:A virgin will
be with child and give birth to a son, and will call him
Immanuel. The son will eat curds and honey when he comes to know
right from wrong. But before this, the land of the two kings of
the north will be devastated.

But because Ahaz did not have faith, God said he would bring
a terrible time on Judah:The king of Assyria would come. at God's
call. Yet after the attack there would still be milk and honey.
But where three were rich vines, there would be only grazing land
for cattle and sheep.

Comments on Chapter 7

At the beginning of this chapter 7, we read of the time of
the Syro-Ephraimite war. Near the end of the reign of Joatham,
around 734, Rezin of Syria in alliance with Pekah of Ephraim
(that is, Israel) had attacked Judah (as we learn in 2 Kings
15:37) and the threat was in earnest. It seems Syria wanted to
draw Judah together with Ephraim into an alliance to offer
resistance to the aggressive Assyrians. But Judah was not so
inclined. Hence Syria and Ephraim wanted to force Judah. Details
of the events can be found in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chronicles 28.
After some military actions such as the capture of Elath (2 Kings
16:6) the northern allies wanted to capture Jerusalem. It was a
tense time.

The house of David, Judah, learned that Aram was in alliance
with Ephraim. Ahaz and his people were shaken like leaves blown
by the wind. But then the Lord told Isaiah to take his son Shear-
Jashub (the name means "a remnant will return") to meet Ahaz at
the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool on the way to
Washerman's field. The idea"a remnant will return" is of unclear
import. It could mean either warning or hope, or physical return
from exile or spiritual return to God. God had ordered Isaiah to
name his son this way, it seems

God told Isaiah to tell Ahaz not to be afraid of those two
smoldering stumps who wanted to invade Judah, for they would not
last long. Isaiah was assure Ahaz that the Lord said:It will not
happen. In saying that Damascus is the head of Aram and Rezin is
the head of Damascus, God was saying in effect:These are only
humans! Similarly He said that Samaria is the head of Ephraim and
the head of Samaria is just the son of Remeliah, just a human
again. They planned to set up the son of Tabeel as a usurper,
king of Judah. The way Isaiah spells Tabeel may be deliberate
corruption of spelling for contempt, so as to mean, in Aramaic:
"Good for nothing", instead of "God is good". So God wanted to
assure Ahaz that within 65 years Ephraim would be shattered as a
people. So Ahaz is ordered to stand firm in faith. If not, he
would not stand at all. The prophecy of the 65 years was
fulfilled in a series of events:The fall of Samaria to Sargon II,
and eventually Esarhaddon of Assyria just about 65 years after
this prophecy, introduced a racial mixture in the area of the
northern kingdom.

Tiglath-Pileser came to the throne of Assyria in 745. This
prophecy of Isaiah probably came around 733. Damascus fell to
Tiglath in 732. Then Shalmaneser V (727-722) and Sargon II (722-
705) attacked Samaria, which fell in 722 or 721.

But Ahaz would not believe, and so through Isaiah God
offered Ahaz a sign in the sky or in the depths. Ahaz said he did
not want to put the Lord to the test.

At that point Isaiah gave the great prophecy:The virgin (or
young woman) will be with child, and will have a son and call him
Immanuel. Before that boy will be old enough to reject wrong and
choose right, the land of the two northern kings will be laid
waste.

Isaiah told Ahaz in the name of the Lord that Assyria, in
whom he wanted to trust against the northern kings, would not
help. Instead God would summon Assyria to swiftly punish Judah.
Instead of rich vines there would be briers and thorns. It would
be a place for cattle and sheep.

Ahaz had even sacrificed his own son by fire 2 Kings 16:2-4
and 2 Chron. 28:1. In his fear he sent messengers to Tiglath-
Pileser of Assyria declaring himself a vassal (2 Kings 16:7; 2
Chron 28:16. He took gold and silver from the temple to give as
tribute. Tiglath Pileser responded quickly, in 734, and took
Damascus, the city of Rezin whom he killed. Ahaz had a pagan
altar, like one in Assyria, set up in the temple:2 Kings 16:10.
He sent so much temple equipment to Assyria that eventually the
sanctuary was closed:2 Kings 16:17-18; 2 Chron 28:24.

Now about that prophecy: "Behold, the young woman shall conceive
and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. "

The date of this prophecy can be gleaned from the fact that
it was spoken to Ahaz who reigned c 735-15 BC.

The Targum does not identify this passage as messianic. However,
Jacob Neusner, (<Messiah in Context> p. 173) quotes the great
Hillel, one of the chief teachers at the time of Christ, as
saying that Hezekiah, son of Achaz (to whom Isaiah spoke) had
been the Messiah. So Hillel considered the text messianic. But
then Neusner adds (p. 190): "Since Christian critics of Judaism
claimed that the prophetic promises. . . had all been kept in the
times of ancient Israel, so that Israel now awaited nothing at
all, it was important to reject the claim that Hezekiah had been
the Messiah". Thus the Talmud, cited by Neusner, p. 173, quotes
Rabbi Joseph as denying that Hezekiah had been the Messiah. St.
Justin Martyr in <Dialogue with Trypho> 77 has Trypho the Jew say
the Jews believe Hezekiah was the Messiah.

But even though the Targum does not mark this passage as
messianic, yet it does mark 9:5-6 as messianic. Now both Is 7. 14
and 9. 5-6 are part of the section on Immanuel, which runs from
6. 1 to 12. 6. Hence it is generally accepted that the child in
7. 14 is the same as the child in 9. 5-6. This means, of course,
that since 9. 5-6 is messianic, so is 7. 14. AS Jacob Neusner,
cited above, said, it was the actions of the Jews against
Christians that caused them to stop saying 7. 14 was messianic.

Who, then, is the child of 7. 14? Some of the characteristics of
9. 5-6 are too grand for Hezekiah, as we shall see. Further the
use of the definite article before <almah> in 7. 14 seems to
point to someone special, not just to the wife of Achaz. Also,
there is no clear example in the Old Testament of <almah> to mean
a married woman. On the other hand, a sign to come seven
centuries later would hardly be a sign for Achaz. We
conclude:this is a case of multiple fulfillment of prophecy:it
refers to both Hezekiah and Christ.

Still further, the Septuagint uses <parthenos> to render Hebrew
<almah> (which means a young woman, of the right age for
marriage, who at least should be a virgin. <Betulah> is the more
precise word for virgin). R. Laurentin (<The Truth of Christmas
Beyond the Myths>, Petersham, 1986, p. 412, claims the Septuagint
sometimes uses <parthenos> loosely. But this is not true.
Actually, there are only two places in the OT where the
Septuagint translates <almah> by <parthenos>. One is in Genesis
24. 43, where the context shows the girl is a virgin. The other
is Is 7. 14. There are several other places where <almah> is at
least likely to be a virgin. But the Septuagint is so careful
that it uses instead of <parthenos>, a more general word,
<neanis> in those cases. Laurentin in the English version appeals
also to Genesis 34. 3 (in the French he had appealed to 34. 4,
which does not have the word <parthenos> at all)! But the case is
at least unclear, since 34. 3 is likely to be an instance of
concentric ring narration, common in Hebrew. In it the text
begins to narrate and event, goes part way, then goes back to the
start and retells, using different details. This may happen twice
or three times. And as we have just said, in all clear instances
the Septuagint is very precise in its use of <parthenos>, at
times more precise than the Hebrew (as shown by the context).

<Our conclusion>:there are good reasons for taking 7:14 as
meaning Jesus, but also good reasons for taking it to mean
Hezekiah. So this is probably a case of multiple fulfillment of
prophecies - on this pattern in general cf. again Wm. Most, <Free
From All Error> (Libertyville, Il. 1990), chapter 5.

What invasion is meant here? The trouble did begin to come
from Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria in 733-32, went further with the
fall of Samaria, capital of the northern kingdom in 722. Then
there was a racial mixture introduced into the north by
Esarhaddon (681-69), which was about 65 years after the prophecy
of Isaiah.

The Lord will bring a terrible time on them. He will whistle
for flies from Egypt and bees from Assyria. They will settle in
the ravines and crevices. The Lord will employ a razor from
beyond the River, the King of Assyria. He will shave their heads
and beards.

What about the comment in verse 15 that the child will eat
curds and honey - and the same expression comes in verse 22. Now
curds and honey could be taken in two ways:the words could
suggest plenty:cf. Exodus 3:8. 17 and Dt 6:3. Or do the words
suggest a normal diet for a recently weaned child? What then of
the use of the words in verse 22:does it mean just a subsistence
diet after an invasion, a small but adequate diet, from being
able to keep a cow? To say the vine will be replaced by cattle
grazing seems to mean a change from agricultural economy to
pastoral. But where there had been a thousand rich vines, there
will be only briers and thorns, and cattle will graze in that
place.