outreachjudaism.org
Dual Prophecy’ and the Virgin Birth
9-11 minutes
Question:
One of the methods you used in your tape series to refute missionary claims is to point out the context of the prophecy. For example, you point out that the seventh chapter of Isaiah cannot be a prophecy about Jesus’ virgin birth because it suggests that the prophecy was to have been fulfilled in Ahaz’s lifetime, some 700 years before Jesus.
Still, maybe this is a “double prophecy,” a prophecy about a boy to be born in the days of Ahaz and also a prophecy to the birth of Jesus. The context is only for the first application of this double prophecy. Rabbi, do you have any comments?
Answer:
When missionaries are confronted with the glaring problem that the context of Isaiah 7:14 is unrelated to the messiah or a virgin birth, they frequently argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a “dual prophecy.”
In order to fully grasp the massive theological problem missionaries are seeking to escape with using this response, let’s begin by exploring the traumatic circumstance that is unfolding in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. This event is completely inconsistent with Matthew’s application of these passages to his virgin-birth story.
As mentioned earlier, the word “virgin”does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word הָעַלְמָה (ha’almah) as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word, however, does not mean “a virgin.” It simple means “the young woman,”with no implication of sexual purity. Most modern Christian Bibles1
have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as “the young woman.”
Matthew, however, not only changed the meaning of the word הָעַלְמָה to apply this verse from the Jewish Scriptures to the virgin birth, he also completely ripped Isaiah 7:14 out of context and utilize it to support his infancy narrative of Jesus.
The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the Syro-Ephraimite War, a military crisis that threatened Ahaz, King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read,
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,” and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, “Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer’s field, and you shall say to him, ‘Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: “Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.” So said the Lord God, “Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass….”‘ The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.” Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.” Then he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”
It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two hostile armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than seven centuries later.
If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity (“he knows to reject bad and choose good”), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. In II Kings 15-16, it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War.
This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew’s complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah’s words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah’s prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously, and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.
Missionaries insist, remarkably, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus’ virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Using this elaborate explanation, Christian apologists maintain that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled twice: The first, in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved?
The self-inflicted problems spawned by this adventurous dual-fulfillment explanation are staggering. The notion of a dual prophecy was fashioned without any Biblical foundation. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text indicate or even hint of a second fulfillment.2
This notion of a dual prophecy was contrived in order to conceal a stunning theological problem – the seventh chapter of Isaiah does not support Matthew’s virgin birth story. Matthew’s claim that Mary was untouched by a man when she conceived Jesus in unsupported by the Book of Isaiah.
The seventh chapter of Isaiah describes, in great detail, a contemporaneous, traumatic civil war which occurred 2,700 years ago, not the birth of a messiah many centuries later. Simply put, the Book of Matthew ripped Isaiah 7:14 completely out of context. Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the Hebrew word almah can only mean a “virgin,” and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive during Ahaz’s lifetime? Were there two virgin births?
In other words, if Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled on two occasions, who was the first virgin to deliver a baby boy during the lifetime of Isaiah, in about 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that these missionaries zealously insist that the word almah can only mean a “virgin.” Are they then suggesting that Mary was not the only virgin in history to conceive and give birth to a son?
Furthermore, if missionaries argue that the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, how do the verses that follow, Isaiah 7:15-16, apply to Jesus where the prophet continues to discuss this lad? The following passages state,
Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; 16 for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.
(Isaiah 7:15-16)
If the seventh chapter of Isaiah contains a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms identified by the prophet Isaiah that were abandoned during Jesus’ lifetime? Who, during the first century C.E., “dreaded” the Kingdom of Israel when there had not been a Northern Kingdom of Israel in existence for 700 years? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does this biblical somersault make any sense? This argument is devoid of reason because this wild assertion of a dual prophecy was born out of a hopeless attempt to explain away Matthew’s transparent mistranslation of the Jewish Scriptures.
Very truly yours,
Rabbi Tovia Singer
- therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: a maiden is with child and she will bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel.
“Behold the Lord Himself will give you a sign, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14They claim that this passage prophesies the miraculous virgin birth of the Messiah and that Jesus is the only one who could have fulfilled it. They also point out that the name Immanuel literally means “God is with us,” and use this as a proof of the divine nature of this individual.The New Testament book of Matthew recounts the genealogy[1] of Jesus starting from Abraham and ending with Joseph the husband of Mary. It claims (Matthew 1:18-25) that when they were betrothed and had not yet consummated their marriage Joseph discovered that Mary was with child and still a virgin. Not wanting to disgrace her he planned to put her away secretly. Only afterwards does the gospel claim that an angel comes and informs Joseph that this event is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah.This entire story is extremely puzzling and a major question begs to be answered. If the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14 is so clear and fundamental to the coming of the Messiah, why was Joseph, a descendant of King David, totally oblivious to it. Upon discovering that his virgin wife was with child he should have jumped for joy that this may be the precursor to the arrival of the Messiah. Instead he suspects her of infidelity.The answer is simply. This passage in Isaiah isn’t speaking about the Messiah or a virgin birth.Let’s begin by examining the context of the seventh chapter of Isaiah. In the same way that America and Korea were divided into North and South during their Civil wars, at this point in Jewish history the Jewish nation was divided into two kingdoms,[2] known as the Southern Kingdom of Judea and the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Each kingdom had its own capital, king and enemies.The Southern Kingdom of Judea had its capital in Jerusalem and was ruled by King Ahaz. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had its capital in Samaria and was ruled by King Pekah. To the north of both these kingdoms was a third, non-Jewish ruler, King Resin of Aram (Syria) whose capital was Damascus.God dispatched the prophet Isaiah and one of his sons to warn King Ahaz that the northern kingdom had formed an alliance with this King RezinThey had joined forces to “wage war against Jerusalem.” Isaiah tells King Ahaz (verse 4) that he should not be afraid because Godwill be with him and the invasion with fail. Additionally, within 65 years the northern kingdom will cease to exist and its 10 tribes would be led into exile by Assyria. This is where the idea of ten lost tribes originates.Although Ahaz was an evil king, God would continue to protect Jerusalem in the merit of his righteous predecessors. When Ahaz ignores Isaiah’s warning the prophet tells him to request a sign from God. After Ahaz refuses this offer, Isaiah informs him that God will give him a sign despite his stubbornness.He tells King Ahaz that:“The Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold the Almah (הָעַלְמָה) shall conceive and give birth to a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14The word Almah has been mistranslated by most Christians as “virgin.” In truth, this word means “young woman.” Additionally, the definite article (Ha-ה) means “the” and indicates that the prophet is speaking about a specific woman who he can point to. Interestingly when Matthew quotes this passage he not only mistranslates “young woman” as “virgin” but, to deflect the reference from a specific woman standing before Isaiah, he intentionally mistranslates “the young woman” as “a virgin.”To prove that “Almah” does in fact mean “a virgin” missionaries fallaciously assert that this word is used 7 times in the bible and that it always refers to a woman who is a virgin.First, those who translate Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin” inconsistently translate the other six places a as “maiden or young woman” revealing their intentional mistranslation.The word “Almah” should always be translated as “a young woman.” This word alone does not teach us anything about her sexual status. It simply informs us that she is young.This is also true of the masculine form of the word “Almah” which is the Hebrew word (Alem עָלֶם) which means “a young man“, as in the following examples:“Whose son is this young man (הָעָלֶם)” Samuel I (17:56)“If I say thus to the young man” Samuel I (20:22)In both cases the word “Alem” only teaches that this man is young, it gives no indication of his sexual status, which by men is indiscernible.The Hebrew bible has a completely different word for virgin. The specific Hebrew word is (Betulah – בְּתּוּלָה). This word has no masculine form and indicates the physical sexual status of a woman. It is always translated as “virgin.” For example:“the girl was very beautiful, a virgin (בְּתּוּלָה), and no man had had any relations with her” Genesis 24:16“I took the woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin (בְּתּוּלָה)” Deut 22:14“And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh 400 young virgins that had known no man.” Judges 21:12These verses show us that the word “Betulah” means “a virgin who has not had physical relations with a man,” regardless of her age. She could be 100 years old or 18 years old. If Isaiah had wanted to tell us the physical status of the woman he would have used the specific word “Betulah,” a word he was familiar with and uses in his writings (see Isaiah 47:1).Missionary are incorrect when they claim that whenever the word “Almah” is used it is referring to a young woman who is also a virgin.[3] Here are some examples were it cannot mean a virgin:“There are sixty queens, and eighty concubines and young women (Almot) without number, my dove my undefiled is but one, she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice of her that bore her,” Song of Songs 6:8-9“There are three things which are to wonderful for me, yes, four which I know not. The way of the eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea and the way of a man with a young woman (Almah). Likewise, the way of an adulterous woman, she eats, and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I have done nothing wrong’.” Proverbs 30:18-20The common characteristic: “the way” is that they all leave no trace, just like an adulterous woman who claims she has done nothing wrong, and there is no trace of her act, so too the eagleleaves no trace in the air, a snake leaves no trace on a rock, a ship leaves no trace in the midst of the sea, so too the young woman (Almah) with a man leaves no sign which is not the case of a virgin who leaves a sign of blood called “the token of her virginity” Deuteronomy 21:15-19.We also see this in the verse:“Bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity” Deuteronomy 22:15Missionaries attempt to prove that “Almah” means a “virgin” by referring to an ancient Greek translation of the Bible, called the Septuagint, which was carried out by 70 rabbis approximately 165 years before Jesus. They claim that in Isaiah 7:14 the word “Almah” is translated as the Greek “parthenos” which they claim means virgin.There are several problems with this claim.First, the Septuagint also translates the Hebrew word (Narah-נַעַרָ-maiden) in Genesis 34:3 as “parthenos-Παρθένος-.”“…Shechem…took her and lay with her by force. And his soul was drawn to her …and he loved the maiden (Narah -הנער), and he spoke to the heart of the maiden (Narah- הנער).” Genesis 34:2‑3In context, this passage is speaking about Dinah the daughter of Jacob, after she was raped by a non-Jew know as Shechem. Obviously, she was not a virgin and we cannot rely on the Septuagint’s inaccurate translation.Secondly, according to both Jewish and Greek traditions, (see Babylonian Talmud Megila 9a and Aristeos’ letter to King Ptolemy) the Septuagint translation attributed to the 70 Rabbi’s was exclusively the Five Books of Moses and did not include the Prophets and the Holy writings, thereby distancing itself from any Greek translation of Isaiah.Additionally, there are no original copies of the Septuagint. Today’s versions are taken from second and third century manuscripts that had been corrupted by non-Jewish writers. That is why the introduction to the Zondervan Septuagint points out that “the Pentateuch is considered to be the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the worst.”Numerous Christian translations like The New Revised Standard Version recognize this mistake and correctly translate “Almah” as “the young woman.”Whether the woman mentioned by Isaiah is a virgin is completely irrelevant. How would anyone know without doing a physical examine and even then, this is not absolute proof.Examining the Hebrew more closely we note that the Hebrew verbs for “conceived – harah” and “will give birth – yoledet” are used throughout scriptures to refer to natural conceptions and birth, as in:“And man new his wife and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) and bore Cain” Genesis 4:1These are the same verbs used in Isaiah 7:14 and refer to a natural birth. The sign mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with a miraculous birth.In context Isaiah is speaking about a specific young woman who will become pregnant during the life time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. A miraculous virgin birth that supposedly took place over560 years later would be irrelevant to Ahaz, who required a sign prior to an imminent military invasion.Christians attempt to avoid this problem by claiming that this is a “double level prophesy” that happens both during the time of Ahaz and again in the time of Jesus. If Christians want to believe that the word Almah means a virgin and simultaneously claim a “double level prophesy” they would have to believe that a virgin birth took place in the time of Ahaz. However, this never occurred and would also contradict the claim that Jesus’ virgin birth is unique.The sign mentioned in verse 14 to Ahaz is that the two kings who threatened King Ahaz would be destroyed quickly. This sign is described in the next verse:“before the child knows enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” Isaiah 7:15It is fulfilled in the next chapter with the birth of a child to the prophet Isaiah:“he (Isaiah) approached the prophetess and she conceived (tahar) and bore (taled) a son and God said to me: Name the child “Maher-shalal-hash-baz” which means (the spoil speeds the prey hastens). For before the child shall know how to cry my father my mother the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Sammaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” Isaiah 8:4Clearly, the woman mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:3-4 are one and the same and that she is Isaiah’s wife. The real sign to King Ahaz is that Isaiah’s child will be born quickly and before he matures (knowing the difference between good and evil and father and mother) the nations who threaten the Kingdom of Judea will be defeated. Interestingly, Isaiah’s children are specifically referred to as a “signs” from God.“Behold I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel.” Isaiah 8:18King Ahaz was told to trust in G-d for assistance and to ask for a sign as proof that his enemies would be defeated. He is told that the sign will be the birth of a child from the young woman who will call the child (Immanuel –עמנואל).[4] Although this name mean ‘God is with us” it does not mean that the child will be divine. It is very common for biblical personality to have names that include God and part of their name. For example, (Daniel –דניאל) means “God is my Judge.”The implication was that G-d would be with Ahaz and the Kingdom of Judah in their fight against their enemies.Isaiah refers to this when he says:“Contrive a scheme, but it will be foiled; conspire a plot, but it will not stand, for God is with us (Emanu El).” Isaiah 8:10Eventually the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Aram-Syria are vanquished by the armies of Sennacherib King of Assyria (Babylon) who exiled the northern kingdom:“The king of Assyria invaded the entire country… the king of Assyria captured Samaria and exiled Israel” 2 Kings 17:5-6“Thus God saved Hezikiah (son of Ahaz) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib King of Assyria.” 2 Chronicles 32:22The concept of a virgin birth preceded Christianity and has its roots in Greco-Roman mythology. Numerous Greek and Roman gods were born of virgin births, as recorded in the “Golden Bough” by Frazer, for example Tammus and Attis who both were claimed to be of virgin births. The concept of the virgin birth was adopted by Christianity from the pagan world and has no foundation in Judaism.Isaiah is clearly describing an event that has no Messianic connotations. In fact, the word Messiah is never used in this chapter.
- CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT:
Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth of Christ?
“Does Isaiah 7:14 contain a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ? Some suggest that Isaiah’s statement refers to a ‘young woman’ (not necessarily a ‘virgin’) of his day, who would conceive and give birth to a child, and that this event would be a sign to Hezekiah. It is then further said that Matthew took that text and applied it to Jesus’ birth, though, allegedly, this was not the meaning of the passage originally. How do we respond to this assertion?”This theory contains so many flaws that it is difficult to know where to begin in refuting it. It can be traced ultimately back to the second century A.D., when it was employed by those who repudiated the concept of predictive prophecy that pointed to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.It has been filtered down, revised and refined over the years, so that some Christians now parrot the theory — though they haven’t a clue that the young woman notion was birthed from the womb of skepticism.As briefly as we can, we note the following points.The Background of the Prophecy
When the kingdom of Judah was threatened by a confederation of enemies from the north, King Ahaz was terrified. God sent the prophet Isaiah to calm the king.The prophet declared that the evil forces would not prevail. Ahaz was encouraged to “ask for a sign” documenting this word of consolation, but the stubborn king refused.Isaiah then directed his attention to the “house of David.” He promised a much greater sign, namely “the virgin” would conceive and bear a son, whose name, Immanuel, would signify “God is with us.”The time-frame that it would take for the Immanuel-child to reach the age of accountability was used as a chronological measurement. Before that time-span would expire, Judah’s current threat would dissipate (which reality came to pass).More importantly, however, was the fact that a much greater deliverance was needed in Israel, and such would be provided by the actual arrival of Immanuel — who is Jesus Christ.A “Sign” is Prophesied
This prophesied event is designated as a sign. The term “sign” is a point of controversy.While the word itself does not demand a miracle on a strictly etymological basis, a word’s meaning is determined by more than etymology alone. General usage and context (both immediate and remote) must be factored in.The immediate context does suggest a miracle. The king had been challenged to ask for a “sign,” either “in the depth, or in the height above” (Is. 7:11). This indicates something phenomenal.Ahaz refused the proffered sign claiming that such would tempt Jehovah—again hinting of the supernatural.Additionally, Matthew’s inspired interpretation of the passage clearly establishes the miraculous nature of the prediction (Mt. 1:22-23).There is no evidence at all that there was a miraculous birth to a virgin in the days of Isaiah.The Sign of a Virgin
The Hebrew word rendered “virgin” isalmah. It is the only biblical word that truly signifies a virgin. Prof. William Beck, who researched this matter with great precision, declared:I have searched exhaustively for instances in whichalmahmight mean a non-virgin or a married woman. There is no passage wherealmahis not a virgin. Nowhere in the Bible or elsewhere doesalmahmean anything but a virgin (1967, 6)Robert Dick Wilson, the incomparable Hebrew scholar who was proficient in forty-five biblically-related languages, declared thatalmah“never meant ‘young married woman,’” and that the presumption of common law is that everyalmahis virtuous, unless she can be proved not to be (1926, 316).Even the Jewish scholar, Cyrus H. Gordon, who made some of the archaeological discoveries at Ras Shamra, conceded that recent archaeological evidence confirms thatalmahmeans “virgin” (1953, 106).The notion thatalmahmerely signifies a “young woman” was first argued by the anti-Christian Jew, Trypho, in the mid-second century A.D (Justin Martyr, 67).The Virgin Shall Conceive
Isaiah’s text plainly says “the virgin” (note the definite article, denoting a specific virgin) “shall conceive.”The passage does not speak of a virgin who would marry (thus surrendering her virginity) and then conceive. She conceives as a virgin.If this alluded to some contemporary of Isaiah, who was his mysterious lady? Were there two virgin births — one in Isaiah’s day and another involving Jesus? There is no credibility to this view.Additionally, the virgin’s child was to be called “Immanuel,” which signifies “God is with us.” If this name applied to a child in Isaiah’s day, who was this illusive youngster? He seems to have vanished as soon as he was born!Matthew mistaken?
The suggestion made by some—that Matthew took Isaiah’s text and gave it an application alien to the original meaning—is unworthy of a correct view of Bible inspiration.Preachers today who take a text, extract it from its context, and make it a mere pretext for points they wish to establish are strongly chastised and their credibility is compromised.Yet men, under the sway of modernism, do not hesitate to so charge God’s inspired apostle in the case of the virgin birth. This is a shameful circumstance.Historical evidence
The church fathers were of one mind that Jesus was born of a virgin, and Isaiah 7:14 was appealed to as an Old Testament prophetic proof-text.For example, Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202) wrote:Wherefore also the Lord Himself gave us a sign, in the depth below, and in the height above, which man did not ask for, because he never expected that a virgin could conceive, or that it was possible that one remaining a virgin could bring forth a son, and that what was thus born should be “God with us”? (19.3)Early scholarship, “rational” influence
The earlier scholars of Christendom (e.g., Calvin, Lowth, Gill, Henry, Clarke, Alexander, Hengstenberg, etc.,) argued that Isaiah 7:14 was exclusively messianic in its import.In the mid-nineteenth century, however, as the influence of German rationalism made its presence felt both in Europe and in America, even writers who were generally considered conservative began to yield to the pressure.They thus suggested that perhaps Matthew only applied Isaiah’s text to the circumstances, when, in reality, there was a primary application to a “young woman” of the prophet’s own day.Edward J. Young’s masterful, three-volume set on the book of Isaiah (Eerdmans, 1965) was driven by a desire to refute this compromising drift — to which even some in the Lord’s family have fallen victim.There is no reason for the Lord’s people to resort to such textual manipulations in dealing with the biblical evidence for the birth of the Savior.For further study, see the author’s chapters in The Living Messages of the Books of the Old Testament (Isaiah), and The Living Messages of the Books of the New Testament (Matthew), in the Spiritual Sword Lectureship books (1977 and 1976 respectively).ARGUMENT # 3"Is 'virgin' or 'young woman' the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14?"
Answer: Isaiah 7:14 reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Quoting Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23 reads, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel - which means, 'God with us.'" Christians point to this "virgin birth" as evidence of Messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. Is this a valid example of fulfilled prophecy? Is Isaiah 7:14 predicting the virgin birth of Jesus? Is "virgin" even the proper translation of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14?
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," and its inherent meaning is "young woman." "Almah" can mean "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. "Almah" occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning "virgin," but neither do they deny the possible meaning of "virgin." There is no conclusive argument for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 being either "young woman" or "virgin." However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, "parthenos," not the more generic Greek word for "young woman." The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.
With all that said, even if the meaning "virgin" is ascribed to "almah" in Isaiah 7:14, does that make Isaiah 7:14 a Messianic prophecy about Jesus, as Matthew 1:23 claims? In the context of Isaiah chapter 7, the Aramites and Israelites were seeking to conquer Jerusalem, and King Ahaz was fearful. The Prophet Isaiah approaches King Ahaz and declares that Aram and Israel would not be successful in conquering Jerusalem (verses 7-9). The Lord offers Ahaz the opportunity to receive a sign (verse 10), but Ahaz refuses to put God to the test (verse 11). God responds by giving the sign Ahaz should look for, "the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son...but before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." In this prophecy, God is essentially saying that within a few years' time, Israel and Aram will be destroyed. At first glace, Isaiah 7:14 has no connection with a promised virgin birth of the Messiah. However, the Apostle Matthew, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, connects the virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:23) with the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 should be understood as being a "double prophecy," referring primarily to the situation King Ahaz was facing, but secondarily to the coming Messiah who would be the ultimate deliverer.ARGUMENT # 4:EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)(14) Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son . . .—Better, behold, the young woman, or perhaps the bride, shall conceive. The first noun has the definite article in the Hebrew, and the word, though commonly used of the unmarried, strictly speaking denotes rather one who has arrived at marriageable age. “Bride,” in the old English and German sense of the word as applied to one who is about to become a wife, or is still a young wife, will, perhaps, best express its relation to the two Hebrew words which respectively and distinctively are used for “virgin” and for “wife.” In Psalm 68:26, the Authorised Version gives “damsels.” The mysterious prophecy which was thus delivered to Ahaz has been very differently interpreted.
7:10-16 Secret disaffection to God is often disguised with the colour of respect to him; and those who are resolved that they will not trust God, yet pretend they will not tempt him. The prophet reproved Ahaz and his court, for the little value they had for Divine revelation. Nothing is more grievous to God than distrust, but the unbelief of man shall not make the promise of God of no effect; the Lord himself shall give a sign. How great soever your distress and danger, of you the Messiah is to be born, and you cannot be destroyed while that blessing is in you. It shall be brought to pass in a glorious manner; and the strongest consolations in time of trouble are derived from Christ, our relation to him, our interest in him, our expectations of him and from him. He would grow up like other children, by the use of the diet of those countries; but he would, unlike other children, uniformly refuse the evil and choose the good. And although his birth would be by the power of the Holy Ghost, yet he should not be fed with angels' food. Then follows a sign of the speedy destruction of the princes, now a terror to Judah. Before this child, so it may be read; this child which I have now in my arms, (Shear-jashub, the prophet's own son, ver. 3,) shall be three or four years older, these enemies' forces shall be forsaken of both their kings. The prophecy is so solemn, the sign is so marked, as given by God himself after Ahaz rejected the offer, that it must have raised hopes far beyond what the present occasion suggested. And, if the prospect of the coming of the Divine Saviour was a never-failing support to the hopes of ancient believers, what cause have we to be thankful that the Word was made flesh! May we trust in and love Him, and copy his example. Therefore - Since you will not "ask" a pledge that the land shall be safe, Yahweh will furnish one unasked. A sign or proof is desirable in the case, and Yahweh will not withhold it because a proud and contemptuous monarch refuses to seek it. Perhaps there is no prophecy in the Old Testament on which more has been written, and which has produced more perplexity among commentators than this. And after all, it still remains, in many respects, very obscure. Its general original meaning is not difficult. It is, that in a short time - within the time when a young woman, then a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should grow old enough to distinguish between good and evils - the calamity which Ahaz feared would be entirely removed. The confederacy would be broken up, and the land forsaken by both those kings. The conception and birth of a child - which could be known only by him who knows "all" future events - would be the evidence of such a result. His appropriate "name" would be such as would be a "sign," or an indication that God was the protector of the nation, or was still with them. In the examination of this difficult prophecy, my first object will be to give an explanation of the meaning of the "words and phrases" as they occur in the passage, and then to show, as far as I may be able, what was the design of the passage. The Lord himself - Hebrew, 'Adonai;' see this word explained in the the note at Isaiah 1:24. He will do it without being asked to do it; he will do it though it is rejected and despised; he will do it because it is important for the welfare of the nation, and for the confirmation of his religion, to furnish a demonstration to the people that he is the only true God. It is clearly implied here, that the sign should be such as Yahweh alone could give. It would be such as would be a demonstration that he presided over the interests of the people. If this refers to the birth of a child, then it means that this was an event which could be known only to God, and which could be accomplished only by his agency. If it refers to the miraculous conception and birth of the Messiah, then it means that that was an event which none but God could accomplish. The true meaning I shall endeavor to state in the notes, at the close of Isaiah 7:16.
Shall give you - Primarily to the house of David; the king and royal family of Judah. It was especially designed to assure the government that the kingdom would be safe. Doubtless, however, the word 'you' is designed to include the nation, or the people of the kingdom of Judah. It would be so public a sign, and so clear a demonstration, as to convince them that their city and land must be ultimately safe.
A sign - A pledge; a token; an evidence of the fulfillment of what is predicted. The word does not, of necessity, denote a miracle, though it is often so applied; see the notes at Isaiah 7:11. Here it means a proof, a demonstration, a certain indication that what he had said should be fulfilled. As that was to be such a demonstration as to show that he was "able" to deliver the land, the word "here" denotes that which was miraculous, or which could be effected "only" by Yahweh.
Behold - הנה hinnêh. This interjection is a very common one in the Old Testament. It is used to arrest attention; to indicate the importance of what was about to be said. It serves to designate persons and things; places and actions. It is used in lively descriptions, and animated discourse; when anything unusual was said, or occurred; or any thing which especially demanded attention; Genesis 12:19; Genesis 16:16; Genesis 18:9; Genesis 1:29; Genesis 40:9; Psalm 134:1. It means here, that an event was to occur which demanded the attention of the unbelieving monarch, and the regard of the people - an event which would be a full demonstration of what the prophet had said, that God would protect and save the nation.
A virgin - This word properly means a girl, maiden, virgin, a young woman who is unmarried, and who is of marriageable age. The word עלמה ‛almâh, is derived from the verb עלם ‛âlam, "to conceal, to hide, to cover." The word עלם ‛elem, from the same verb, is applied to a "young man," in 1 Samuel 17:56; 1 Samuel 20:22. The word here translated a virgin, is applied to Rebekah Genesis 24:43, and to Miriam, the sister of Moses, Exodus 2:8. It occurs in only seven places in the Old Testament. Besides those already mentioned, it is found in Psalm 68:25; Sol 1:3; Sol 6:8; and Proverbs 30:19. In all these places, except, perhaps, in Proverbs, it is used in its obvious natural sense, to denote a young, unmarried female. In the Syriac, the word alĕm, means to grow up, juvenis factus est; juvenescere fecited. Hence, the derivatives are applied to youth; to young men; to young women - to those who "are growing up," and becoming youths.
The etymology of the word requires us to suppose that it means one who is growing up to a marriageable state, or to the age of puberty. The word maiden, or virgin, expresses the correct idea. Hengstenberg contends, that it means one "in the unmarried state;" Gesenius, that it means simply the being of marriageable age, the age of puberty. The Hebrews usually employed the word בתולה bethûlâh, to denote a pure virgin (a word which the Syriac translation uses here); but the word here evidently denotes one who was "then" unmarried; and though its primary idea is that of one who is growing up, or in a marriageable state, yet the whole connection requires us to understand it of one who was "not then married," and who was, therefore, regarded and designated as a virgin. The Vulgate renders it 'virgo.' The Septuagint, ἡ παρθένος hē parthenos, "a virgin" - a word which they use as a translation of the Hebrew בתולה bethûlâh in Exodus 22:16-17; Leviticus 21:3, Leviticus 21:14; Deuteronomy 22:19, Deuteronomy 22:23, Deuteronomy 22:28; Deuteronomy 32:25; Judges 19:24; Judges 21:12; and in thirty-three other places (see Trommius' Concordance); of נערה na‛ărâh, a girl, in Genesis 24:14, Genesis 24:16, Genesis 24:55; Genesis 34:3 (twice); 1 Kings 1:2; and of עלמה ‛almâh, only in Genesis 24:43; and in Isaiah 7:14.
The word, in the view of the Septuagint translators, therefore conveyed the proper idea of a virgin. The Chaldee uses substantially the same word as the Hebrew. The idea of a "virgin" is, therefore, the most obvious and natural idea in the use of this word. It does not, however, imply that the person spoken of should be a virgin "when the child" should be born; or that she should ever after be a virgin. It means simply that one who was "then" a virgin, but who was of marriageable age, should conceive, and bear a son. Whether she was "to be" a virgin "at the time" when the child was born, or was to remain such afterward, are inquiries which cannot be determined by a philological examination of the word. It is evident also, that the word is not opposed to "either" of these ideas. "Why" the name which is thus given to an unmarried woman was derived from the verb to "hide, to conceal," is not agreed among lexicographers. The more probable opinion is, that it was because to the time of marriage, the daughter was supposed to be hidden or concealed in the family of the parents; she was kept shut up, as it were, in the paternal dwelling. This idea is given by Jerome, who says, 'the name is given to a virgin because she is said to be hidden or secret; because she does not expose herself to the gaze of men, but is kept with great care under the custody of parents.' The sum of the inquiry here, into the meaning of the word translated "virgin," is, that it does not differ from that word as used by us. The expression means no more than that one who was then a virgin should have a son, and that this should be a sign to Ahaz.
And shall call his name - It was usual for "mothers" to give names to their children; Genesis 4:1; Genesis 19:37; Genesis 29:32; Genesis 30:18. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose, as many of the older interpreters did, that the fact that it is said the mother should give the name, was a proof that the child should have no human father. Such arguments are unworthy of notice; and only show to what means people have resorted in defending the doctrines, and in interpreting the pages of the Bible. The phrase, 'she will name,' is, moreover, the same as 'they shall name,' or he shall be named. 'We are not, then, to suppose that the child should actually receive the name Immanuel as a proper name, since, according to the usage of the prophet, and especially of Isaiah, that is often ascribed to a person or thing as a name which belongs to him in an eminent degree as an attribute; see Isaiah 9:5; Isaiah 61:6; Isaiah 62:4.' - "Hengstenberg." The idea is, that that would be a name that might be "appropriately" given to the child. Another name was also given to this child, expressing substantially the same thing, with a circumstantial difference; see the note at Isaiah 8:3.
Immanuel - Hebrew 'God with us' - עמנואל ‛immânû'êl - from אל 'ĕl, "God," and עמנוּ ‛ı̂mmânû, "with us." The name is designed to denote that God would be with the nation as its protector, and the birth of this child would be a sign or pledge of it. The mere circumstance that this name is given, however, does not imply anything in regard to the nature or rank of the child, for nothing was more common among the Jews than to incorporate the name, or a part of the name, of the Deity with the names which they gave to their children. Thus, "Isaiah" denotes the salvation of Yahweh; "Jeremiah," the exaltation or grandeur of Yahweh, each compounded of two words, in which the name Yahweh constitutes a part. Thus, also in "Elijah," the two names of God are combined, and it means literally, "God the Yahweh." Thus, also "Eliab," God my faather; "Eliada," knowledge of God; "Eliakim," the resurrection of God; "Elihu," he is my God; "Elisha," salvation of God. In none of these instances is the fact, that the name of God is incorporated with the proper name of the individual, any argument in respect to his rank or character.
It is true, that Matthew Mat 1:23 uses this name as properly expressing the rank of the Messiah; but all that can be demonstrated from the use of the name by Matthew is, that it properly designated the nature and rank of the Lord Jesus. It was a pledge, then, that God was with his people, and the name designated by the prophet had a complete fulfillment in its use as applied to the Messiah. Whether the Messiah be regarded as himself a pledge and demonstration of the presence and protection of God, or whether the name be regarded as descriptive of his nature and dignity, yet there was an "appropriateness" in applying it to him. It was fully expressive of the event of the incarnation. Jerome supposes that the name, Immanuel, denotes nothing more than divine aid and protection. Others have supposed, however, that the name must denote the assumption of our nature by God in the person of the Messiah, that is, that God became man. So Theodoret, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Chrysostom. Calvin, Rosenmuller, and others. The true interpretation is, that no argument to prove that can be derived from the use of the name; but when the fact of the incarnation has been demonstrated from other sources, the "name is appropriately expressive of that event." So it seems to be used by Matthew.
It may be quite true, that no argument can be founded on the bare name, Immanuel; yet that name, "in its connection here," may certainly be regarded as a designed prediction of the incarnation of Christ. Such a design our author allows in the prophecy generally. 'The prophet,' says he, 'designedly made use of language which would be appropriate to a future and most glorious event.' Why, then, does he speak of the most pregnant word in the prophecy as if Matthew had accidentally stumbled on it, and, finding it would appropriately express the nature of Christ, accomodated it for that purpose? Having originally rejected the Messianic reference, and been convinced only by a more careful examination of the passage, that he was in error, something of his old view seems still to cling to this otherwise admirable exposition. 'The name Immanuel,' says Professor Alexander, 'although it might be used to signify God's providential presence merely Psalm 46:8, 12; Psalm 89:25; Joshua 1:5; Jeremiah 1:8; Isaiah 43:2, has a latitude and pregnancy of meaning which can scarcely be fortuitous; and which, combined with all the rest, makes the conclusion almost unavoidable, that it was here intended to express a personal, as well as a providential presence ... When we read in the Gospel of Matthew, that Jesus Christ was actually born of a virgin, and that all the circumstances of his birth came to pass that this very prophecy might be fulfilled, it has less the appearance of an unexpected application, than of a conclusion rendered necessary by a series of antecedent facts and reasonings, the last link in a long chain of intimations more or less explicit (referring to such prophecies as Genesis 3:15; Micah 5:2).
The same considerations seem to show that the prophecy is not merely accommodated, which is, moreover, clear fram the emphatic form of the citation τοῦτο ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ touto holon gegonen hina plēroothē, making it impossible to prove the existence of any quotation in the proper sense, if this be not one.' But, indeed, the author himself admits all this, though his language is less decided and consistent than could be wished on so important a subject.
14. himself—since thou wilt not ask a sign, nay, rejectest the offer of one. you—for the sake of the house of believing "David" (God remembering His everlasting covenant with David), not for unbelieving Ahaz' sake.
Behold—arresting attention to the extraordinary prophecy.
virgin—from a root, "to lie hid," virgins being closely kept from men's gaze in their parents' custody in the East. The Hebrew, and the Septuagint here, and Greek (Mt 1:23), have the article, the virgin, some definite one known to the speaker and his hearers; primarily, the woman, then a virgin, about immediately to become the second wife, and bear a child, whose attainment of the age of discrimination (about three years) should be preceded by the deliverance of Judah from its two invaders; its fullest significancy is realized in "the woman" (Ge 3:15), whose seed should bruise the serpent's head and deliver captive man (Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3). Language is selected such as, while partially applicable to the immediate event, receives its fullest, most appropriate, and exhaustive accomplishment in Messianic events. The New Testament application of such prophecies is not a strained "accommodation"; rather the temporary fulfilment of an adaptation of the far-reaching prophecy to the present passing event, which foreshadows typically the great central end of prophecy, Jesus Christ (Re 19:10). Evidently the wording is such as to apply more fully to Jesus Christ than to the prophet's son; "virgin" applies, in its simplest sense, to the Virgin Mary, rather than to the prophetess who ceased to be a virgin when she "conceived"; "Immanuel," God with us (Joh 1:14; Re 21:3), cannot in a strict sense apply to Isaiah's son, but only to Him who is presently called expressly (Isa 9:6), "the Child, the Son, Wonderful (compare Isa 8:18), the mighty God." Local and temporary features (as in Isa 7:15, 16) are added in every type; otherwise it would be no type, but the thing itself. There are resemblances to the great Antitype sufficient to be recognized by those who seek them; dissimilarities enough to confound those who do not desire to discover them.
call—that is, "she shall," or as Margin, "thou, O Virgin, shalt call;" mothers often named their children (Ge 4:1, 25; 19:37; 29:32). In Mt 1:23 the expression is strikingly changed into, "They shall call"; when the prophecy received its full accomplishment, no longer is the name Immanuel restricted to the prophetess' view of His character, as in its partial fulfilment in her son; all shall then call (that is, not literally), or regard Him as peculiarly and most fitly characterized by the descriptive name, "Immanuel" (1Ti 3:16; Col 2:9).
name—not mere appellation, which neither Isaiah's son nor Jesus Christ bore literally; but what describes His manifested attributes; His character (so Isa 9:6). The name in its proper destination was not arbitrary, but characteristic of the individual; sin destroyed the faculty of perceiving the internal being; hence the severance now between the name and the character; in the case of Jesus Christ and many in Scripture, the Holy Ghost has supplied this want [Olshausen].
Therefore; because you despise me, and the sign which I now offer to you, God of his own free grace will send you a more honourable messenger, and give you a nobler sign, to try whether that will cure you of your infidelity. Or, nevertheless, as this particle seems to be understood, Isaiah 30:18 Jeremiah 16:14 30:16. Although you deserve no sign nor favour, yet, for the comfort of those few believers which are among you, and to leave you without excuse, I shall mind you or another and a greater sign, which God hath promised, and will in his due time perform; which also is a pledge of the certain accomplishment of all God’s promises. Or, surely, as this particle is sometimes used, as Genesis 4:15 Jeremiah 2:33 5:2 Zechariah 11:7.
A sign, to wit, of your deliverance.
Quest. How was this birth of a virgin, which was not to come till many ages after, a sign of their deliverance from the present danger?
Answ.
1. Because this was a clear demonstration of God’s infinite power, and goodness, and faithfulness, and consequently of the certain truth of all God’s promises from time to time, which can never fill so long as those attributes of God stand; and men’s faith is either strong or weak, as they believe them or doubt of them; of which see Psalm 77:8 78:19,20 Ro 4:20,21. And so this was a proper remedy for Ahaz’s disease, which was a secret suspicion that God either could not or would not deliver them.
2. Because that promise, I say not only the actual giving, which was long after, but even the promise, of the Messiah, which had been made long since, and oft renewed, and was universally believed by all the people, was the foundation of all God’s mercies and promises unto them, 2 Corinthians 1:20, and a pledge of the accomplishment of them.
3. Because this promised birth did suppose and require the preservation of that city, and nation, and tribe, in and of which the Messiah was to be born; and therefore there was no cause to fear that utter ruin which their enemies now threatened to bring upon them.
4. This is one, but not the only sign here given, as we shall see at Isaiah 7:16.
Behold; you who will not believe that God alone is able to deliver you from the united force of Syria and Israel, take notice, for your full satisfaction, that God is not only able to do this work, but to do far greater and harder things, which he hath promised, and therefore both can and will accomplish.
A virgin; strictly and properly so called. The Jews, that they may obscure this plain text, and weaken this proof of the truth of Christian religion, pretend that this Hebrew word signifies a young woman, and not a virgin. But this corrupt translation is easily confuted,
1. Because this word constantly signifies a virgin in all other places of Scripture where it is used, which are Genesis 24:43, compared with Isaiah 7:16 Exodus 2:8 Psalm 68:25 Song of Solomon 1:3 6:8; to which may be added Proverbs 30:19, The way of a man with a maid, or a virgin: for though it be supposed that he did design and desire to corrupt her, and afterwards did so; yet she may well be called a virgin, partly because he found her a virgin, and partly because she seemed and pretended to others to be such, which made her more careful to use all possible arts to preserve her reputation, and so made the discovery of her impure conversation with the man more difficult, whereas the filthy practices of common harlots are easily and vulgarly known.
2. From the scope of this place, which is to confirm their faith by a strange and prodigious sign, which surely could not be not a young woman should conceive a child, but that a virgin should conceive, &c.
Bear a Son; or rather, bring forth, as it is rendered, Matthew 1:23, and as this Hebrew word is used, Genesis 16:11 17:19 Judges 13:5.
And shall call; the virgin, last mentioned, shall call; which is added as a further evidence of her virginity, and that this Son had no human father, because the right of naming the child (which, being a sign of dominion, is primarily in the husband, and in the wife only by his consent or permission, as is evident from Genesis 5:29 35:18 Luke 1:60,63, and many other places of Scripture) is wholly appropriated to her.
Immanuel; which signifies, God with us; God dwelling among us, in our nature, John 1:14, God and man meeting in one person, and being a Mediator between God and men. For the design of these words is not so much to relate the name by which Christ should commonly be called, as to describe his nature and office; as we read that his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, &c., Isaiah 9:6, and that this is said to be his (the Messiah’s) name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness, Jeremiah 23:6, although he be never called by these names in any other place of the Old or New Testament; but the meaning of these places is, He shall be wonderful, and our Counsellor, &c., and our Righteousness; for to be called is oft put for to be, as Isaiah 1:26 4:3, &c. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign,.... Whether they would ask one or not; a sign both in heaven and earth, namely, the promised Messiah; who being the Lord from heaven, would take flesh of a virgin on earth; and who as man, being buried in the heart of the earth, would be raised from thence, and ascend up into heaven; and whose birth, though it was to be many years after, was a sign of present deliverance to Judah from the confederacy of the two kings of Syria and Israel; and of future safety, since it was not possible that this kingdom should cease to be one until the Messiah was come, who was to spring from Judah, and be of the house of David; wherefore by how much the longer off was his birth, by so much the longer was their safety. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; this is not to be understood of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age; in like manner, Aben Ezra and Kimchi object to it; and besides, his mother could not be called a "virgin": and for the same reason it cannot be understood of any other son of his either by his wife, as Kimchi thinks, or by some young woman; moreover, no other son of his was ever lord of Judea, as this Immanuel is represented to be, in Isaiah 8:8 nor can it be interpreted of Isaiah's wife and son, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi think; since the prophet could never call her a "virgin", who had bore him children, one of which was now with him; nor indeed a "young woman", but rather "the prophetess", as in Isaiah 8:3 nor was any son of his king of Judah, as this appears to be, in the place before cited: but the Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned, as Genesis 24:43 and even in Proverbs 30:19 which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted; since it does not appear that the maid and the adulterous woman are one and the same person; and if they were, she might, though vitiated, be called a maid or virgin, from her own profession of herself, or as she appeared to others who knew her not, or as she was antecedent to her defilement; which is no unusual thing in Scripture, see Deuteronomy 22:28 to which may be added, that not only the Evangelist Matthew renders the word by "a virgin"; but the Septuagint interpreters, who were Jews, so rendered the word hundreds of years before him; and best agrees with the Hebrew word, which comes from the root which signifies to "hide" or "cover"; virgins being covered and unknown to men; and in the eastern country were usually kept recluse, and were shut up from the public company and conversation of men: and now this was the sign that was to be given, and a miraculous one it was, that the Messiah should be born of a pure and incorrupt virgin; and therefore a "behold" is prefixed to it, as a note of admiration; and what else could be this sign or wonder? not surely that a young married woman, either Ahaz's or Isaiah's wife, should be with child, which is nothing surprising, and of which there are repeated instances every day; nor was it that the young woman was unfit for conception at the time of the prophecy, which was the fancy of some, as Jarchi reports, since no such intimation is given either in the text or context; nor did it lie in this, that it was a male child, and not a female, which was predicted, as R. Saadiah Gaon, in Aben Ezra, would have it; for the sign or wonder does not lie in the truth of the prophet's prediction, but in the greatness of the thing predicted; besides, the verification of this would not have given the prophet much credit, nor Ahaz and the house of David much comfort, since this might have been ascribed rather to a happy conjecture than to a spirit of prophecy; much less can the wonder be, that this child should eat butter and honey, as soon as it was born, as Aben Ezra and Kimchi suggest; since nothing is more natural to, and common with young children, than to take down any kind of liquids which are sweet and pleasant.
And shall call his name Immanuel; which is, by interpretation, "God with us", Matthew 1:23 whence it appears that the Messiah is truly God, as well as truly man: the name is expressive of the union of the two natures, human and divine, in him; of his office as Mediator, who, being both God and man, is a middle person between both; of his converse with men on earth, and of his spiritual presence with his people. See John 1:14.
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)14–16. The sign of Immanuel. See Additional Note at the end of this chapter. 14. Therefore] because of this act of unbelief. the Lord himself] The word is Adonai, as ch. Isaiah 6:1.
Behold, a virgin] (LXX. ἡ παρθένος, other Greek versions νεᾶνις.) The Hebrew word (‘almâh) means strictly “a young woman of marriageable age.” Both etymology and usage (cf. esp. Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 6:8) are adverse to the opinion, once prevalent among Christian interpreters and maintained by a few in recent times, that virginity is necessarily connoted (see Robertson Smith, Prophets, Revd. Ed. pp. 426 f.). To express that idea a different word (běthûlâh) must have been employed, although even it might not be wholly free from ambiguity (? Joel 1:8). It is, of course, not disputed that ‘almâh may be used of a virgin (as Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8); but even if this usage were more uniform than it is, it would still be far from proving that virginity was an essential of the notion. It would appear, therefore, that the idea of a miraculous conception was not present to Isaiah’s mind at this time, since a prediction of such astounding import must surely have been clothed in unambiguous language. Nor does the def. art., which is used in the original, necessarily denote a particular individual. (Cf. 2 Samuel 17:17, and see Davidson, Synt. § 21 e.) So far as grammar and context go, the expression may mean any young woman, fit to become a mother, whether as yet married or unmarried.
shall conceive, and bear a son] The same phrase in Genesis 16:11; Jdg 13:5. In the passage before us the verbs in the original are both participles, and might refer either to the present or the future. But it is doubtful if we can fairly apply one to the present and the other to the future, translating “is with child and shall bear.” Since the birth is certainly future, it seems natural to take the first verb in a future sense also.
and shall call] An archaic form, easily mistaken for 2nd pers. (so LXX. &c.). The mother names the child, as in Genesis 4:1; Genesis 4:25; Genesis 19:37 f.; Genesis 29:32, &c. An instructive parallel is the naming of the child Ichabod, born to Eli’s daughter-in-law on the dark day when the ark of God was taken and the glory departed from Israel (1 Samuel 4:19-22).
Immanuel] “With us is God.” The battle-cry of Gustavus Adolphus in the Thirty Years War, “Gott mit uns,” was also Isaiah’s watchword for the coming crisis (cf. ch. Isaiah 8:8; Isaiah 8:10); and like other great thoughts of his ministry he as it were gives it personal and concrete actuality by conceiving it as embodied in the name of a child.
Additional Note on Chap. Isaiah 7:14-16Probably no single passage of the Old Testament has been so variously interpreted or has given rise to so much controversy as the prophecy contained in these verses. The difficulties arise mainly from the fact that while the terms of the prediction are so indefinite as to admit a wide range of possibilities, we have no record of its actual fulfilment in any contemporary event. The purpose of this note will be to indicate the chief lines along which a solution has been sought for, and to consider how far they satisfy the conditions of a reasonable historical exegesis. But before entering on this survey, it will be well to enquire what sort of fulfilment the context would lead us to expect, or in other words what kind of sign would serve the immediate objects of the prophet’s mission to Ahaz.
We are not entitled to assume as a matter of course that the sign here given will be in all respects such a sign as Ahaz might have asked at an earlier stage of the interview (Isaiah 7:11). In the first place it need not involve an objective miracle, although a miracle of the most stupendous order was originally put within the option of Ahaz. Any of the senses in which the word “sign” is used (see on Isaiah 7:11) in connexion with a prediction, would satisfy the requirements of Isaiah 7:14. But further there is a presumption that the import of the sign will have been changed by what has taken place in the interval. Isaiah’s first message to Ahaz is an unqualified assurance of deliverance from the designs of Rezin and Pekah, and the sign first offered would be a sign of that and that alone. The prospect of an Assyrian invasion was no doubt in the background of the prophet’s horizon, but his message to Ahaz is complete in itself and takes no account of that final catastrophe. It is manifest, however, that in Isaiah’s mind the whole aspect of affairs is altered by the king’s refusal. The Assyrian invasion is brought into immediate connexion with the attack of the allies, and a new forecast of the future is presented by the prophet in which three great events follow closely on one another: (1) the collapse of the project of the allied princes, (2) the total destruction of Syria and Ephraim by the Assyrians, and (3) the devastation of Judah by the same ruthless conquerors. And the most natural supposition is that the new sign will be an epitome of this new and darker outlook, that is to say it will be a pledge at once of the immediate deliverance and of the judgment that lies behind it. Indeed this view is so obviously implied by Isaiah 7:14-16 that we are shut up to it unless, with some critics, we remove Isaiah 7:15 as an interpolation.
Now there are three features of the prediction in which the import of the sign may be looked for: (i) the birth of the child, (ii) his name, and (iii) his history. And of these three the last is certainly an essential element of the prophecy, as is shewn by Isaiah 7:15-16. With regard to the other two we can only say that it is antecedently improbable that either of them should be without some special significance.
(i) If the import of the sign be sought mainly in the birth of the child it becomes almost necessary to assume that the terms of the prophecy point to something extraordinary and mysterious in the circumstances of the birth. This is the case with the traditional Christian interpretation, which finds in it a direct prediction of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mother of our Lord. The chief support of this view has always been the authority of the Evangelist Matthew, who cites Isaiah 7:14 in relating the birth of Jesus (Isaiah 1:22-23). But it must be observed that such a citation is not decisive as to the original sense of the passage, any more than Matthew 2:15 determines the original sense of Hosea 11:1. The great difficulty of the interpretation is that such an event could by no means serve the purpose of a sign to Ahaz. It may be freely admitted, in view of Isaiah 7:11, that the expectation of a parthenogenesis is not too bold to be attributed to Isaiah in this moment of ecstatic inspiration. But if this be granted on the one hand it must be conceded on the other that he expected the miracle to be wrought in the immediate future; his language (“a virgin is about to conceive”) implies that the prediction is on the eve of fulfilment, and the assurance in Isaiah 7:16 is nugatory if the promised sign was not to happen for more than 700 years. Moreover, such an idea would require to be unambiguously expressed, and we have seen that the word ‘almâh does not connote virginity in the strict sense. Whatever element of truth, therefore, may underlie this exegesis, it can scarcely be held to afford an adequate solution of the problem presented by the oracle in its primary and historical application.
(ii) Another class of explanations regards the event as a sign to Ahaz and nothing more, and of these we may examine first those which find the chief significance of the sign in the naming of the child. Perhaps the most persuasive presentation of this view is that given by Duhm. According to that expositor, the ‘almâh is any young mother who may give birth to a child in the hour of Judah’s deliverance from Syria and Ephraim. “God (is) with us” will be the spontaneous exclamation of child-bearing women in that time; and to such utterances at the moment of birth a certain oracular significance was attached, which caused them to be perpetuated in the name of the child. The child (or children) bearing the name Immanuel will grow up as a sign to Ahaz, first of the genuineness of Isaiah’s inspiration, who foretold the event, and second of the yet future judgment threatened on the same occasion and his own rejection by Jehovah. To this theory no exception can be taken on grammatical or historical grounds. It is undoubtedly rendered easier by the excision of Isaiah 7:15, which Duhm advocates. If that verse be retained one feels that the sign is rather overloaded by a circumstance which is directly opposed to the meaning of the name. And apart from this there will perhaps remain an impression that justice has not been done to the emphasis with which the birth is announced. Why, on this view, should the mother be an ‘almâh—a young woman?
(iii) A third view (not to be sharply distinguished from ii) lays stress not so much on the birth or the naming as on the history of the child, which becomes a sort of chronological thread on which political events are strung. The meaning is: before the birth of a certain child Judah will have experienced a great deliverance (Isaiah 7:14), before he has emerged from infancy, Syria and Ephraim will have disappeared (Isaiah 7:16) and at a later stage of his development the land of Judah will be reduced to a pastoral wilderness (Isaiah 7:15). An interesting parallel is found in the child Pollio in Vergil’s fourth Eclogue, and another from the life of Mohammed has been lately pointed out by Mr Bevan[33]. And as in these two cases a particular child is the subject of the sign, so here expositors have hazarded several guesses as to the identity of the ‘almâh. She has been supposed to be (a) the wife of Isaiah, either the mother of Shearjashub, or a second wife (some identifying Immanuel with Maher-shalal-hash-baz, ch. Isaiah 8:3), (b) a damsel in the harem of Ahaz (the mother of Hezekiah is excluded by the chronology), or (c) a young woman among the bystanders, indicated by a gesture. None of these conjectures can be pronounced altogether happy. They are all alike discredited by a certain touch of vulgarity implied in the designation of some known individual as “the damsel.”
[33] Jewish Quarterly Review, Oct. 1893, pp. 220 ff. The incident is that of a Jew who was discoursing to an Arab tribe at Medina about the resurrection and the last judgment. “ ‘But,’ said they, ‘what is the sign (âyat, Hebr. אוֹת) of this?’ ‘A prophet,’ he answered, ‘sent from that country yonder,’ pointing with his hand towards Mecca and Yemen. ‘But when,’ they asked, ‘do you think he will come?’ Then he looked at me and said, ‘If this boy reaches the full term of life, he will see him.’ And in fact before another day had passed God sent His Apostle to dwell among us, and we believed on him, &c.”
An ingenious modification of the last two theories recently propounded by an American writer[34], differs from all others in excluding the prospect of deliverance from the import of the sign, whose significance is found in the contrast between the name of the child and his history. The name Immanuel embodies the religious optimism of the king and nation, their false trust in the protection of Jehovah; the hardships through which the child passes symbolise the providential course of events under which this delusive confidence must collapse. This interpretation, however, requires the excision of at least the latter part of Isaiah 7:16, and also the rejection of ch. Isaiah 8:9-10 as spurious.
[34] F. C. Porter, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. xiv. 1895, pp. 19–36.
(iv) Another line of exegesis which has commended itself to a large number of modern expositors starts from the idea that here for the first time the figure of the personal Messiah is flashed on Isaiah’s mind. On this view the prophecy is invested with profound religious significance, which is not the case with the two last-mentioned theories. Face to face with the craven-hearted monarch who had betrayed his trust as guardian of the liberty and independence of Judah, the prophet receives this revelation of the true King, as one born to his people in the hour of danger, sharing their poverty and affliction in his youth and waiting the time when “the government shall be upon his shoulder” and the perfect kingdom of God shall be established (Isaiah 9:6). The attention is concentrated on the mysterious personality of the child, that of the mother falls into the background. She may be some unknown daughter of the royal house, or a nameless maiden of lowly rank; the essential fact is that in the speedy advent of Immanuel, in his name, in his experience, men will recognise the God-given “sign” of the truth of the prophet’s words. This on the whole seems to be the theory which affords the most adequate solution of the complex difficulties of the passage. It satisfies tie claims of a truly historical interpretation, and at the same time it accounts, as none of the other modern theories do, for the impassioned fervour, the indefinable atmosphere of mystery and emotion with which the words are surrounded. It is no objection to it that the anticipation remained an unrealised ideal long after the opportunity for a sign to Ahaz had passed away; for a similar remark applies to the whole conception of a personal Messiah, whose appearance Isaiah certainly expected to synchronise with the Assyrian invasion. Not the least of its recommendations, indeed, is the fact that it brings this prophecy into line with the other great Messianic prophecies of ch. Isaiah 9:1-7 and Isaiah 11:1 ff.; and if the last words of ch. Isaiah 8:8 are rightly rendered “thy land, O Immanuel” (which however has been disputed, see on the verse below) a link would be supplied which would make the proof almost irresistible, since no ordinary child, born or unborn, could be naturally apostrophised as the owner of the land.
(v) An allegorical interpretation of the prophecy has been advanced by a few scholars, the “virgin” being taken as a personification of the Davidic house, or of the religious community, and the child either as the Messiah, or as a figure of the new generation; or else the birth is explained as merely a general symbol of deliverance. But all this is purely fanciful.
A few words may be added in conclusion on the pre-Christian acceptation of the passage. From a very early time it seems to have been recognised that a certain mystery clung to the words, that their significance was not exhausted by the circumstances in which they were originally spoken, but that they had an eschatological reference, pointing forward to the birth of the Messiah, as the wonderful event on which all the hope of the future hung. The first trace of this tendency is found in Micah 5:3 : “therefore will he (Jehovah) give them up until the time when a (certain) travailing woman hath brought forth, &c.” These words can hardly be explained otherwise than as a reference to Isaiah 7:14; and if it were certain that they were written by a contemporary of Isaiah they would go far to determine the sense in which the earlier prophecy should be understood. Since, however, they belong to a part of the book of Micah whose age is disputed, they may possibly represent a secondary application of Isaiah’s prophecy rather than its primary intention. A further advance in the same direction appears to be indicated by the rendering of our passage in the LXX. It is almost incredible that the use of the word παρθένος for ‘almâh in so important a connexion should be due to mere laxity on the part of the translator. More probably it expresses a belief current in Jewish circles that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. A good deal of evidence has been adduced to shew that such an expectation actually prevailed amongst both Alexandrian and Palestinian Jews [35], and if it existed it could hardly fail to influence the exegesis of this prophecy. It was only when the prophecy was appealed to by the Christians in proof of the Messiahship of Jesus that the Jewish exegetes seem finally to have repudiated the Messianic interpretation. They refused to admit that the word ‘almâh could properly be translated “virgin” and fell back on one or other of the theories mentioned under (iii). The Christian Fathers on the other hand resolutely upheld the correctness of the LXX., although the post-Christian Greek versions of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus agree in rendering the word by νεᾶνις. The patristic view maintained an all but unquestioned ascendancy within the Church till the dawn of historical criticism in the eighteenth century, when it began to be recognised that on the philological question the Jews were right.
[35] See Mr F. P. Badham’s letter in the Academy of 8 June, 1895. Verse 14. - Therefore. To show that your perversity cannot change God's designs, which will be accomplished, whether you hear or whether you forbear. The Lord himself; i.e. "the Lord himself, of his own free will, unasked." Will give you a sign. "Signs" were of various kinds. They might be actual miracles performed to attest a Divine commission (Exodus 4:3-9); or judgments of God, significative of his power and justice (Exodus 10:2); or memorials of something in the past (Exodus 13:9, 16); or pledges of something still future. Signs of this last-mentioned kind might be miracles (Judges 6:36-40; 2 Kings 20:8-11), or prophetic announcements (Exodus 3:12; 1 Samuel 2:34; 2 Kings 19:29). These last would only have the effect of signs on those who witnessed their accomplishment. Behold. "A forewarning of a great event" (Cheyne). A virgin shall conceive. It is questioned whether the word translated "virgin," viz. 'almah, has necessarily that meaning; but it is admitted that the meaning is borne out by every other place in which the word occurs m the Old Testament (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; Song of Solomon 6:8). The LXX., writing two centuries before the birth of Christ, translate by παρθένος. The rendering "virgin" has the support of the best modern Hebraists, as Lowth, Gesenins, Ewald, Delitzsch, Kay. It is observed with reason that unless 'almah is translated "virgin," there is no announcement made worthy of the grand prelude: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign - Behold!" The Hebrew, however, has not "a virgin," but "the virgin" (and so the Septuagint, ἡ παρθένος), which points to some special virgin, pro-eminent above all others. And shall call; better than the marginal rendering, thou shalt call. It was regarded as the privilege of a mother to determine her child's name (Genesis 4:25; Genesis 16:11; Genesis 29:32-35; Genesis 30:6-13, 18-21, 24; Genesis 35:18, etc.), although formally the father gave it (Genesis 16:15; 2 Samuel 12:24; Luke 1:62, 83). Immanuel. Translated for us by St. Matthew (Matthew 1:23) as "God with us" (μεθ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός). (Comp. Isaiah 8:8, 10.)
Isaiah 7:15 Verse 15. - Butter and honey shall he eat. His fare shall be of the simplest kind (comp. ver. 22). That he may know; rather, till he shall know (Rosenmüller); i.e. till he come to years of discretion. (The rendering of the Revisers of 1885, "when he knoweth," is less satisfactory.)
- Note on the general purport of the Immanuel prophecy. Few prophecies have been the subject of so much controversy, or called forth such a variety of exegesis, as this prophecy of Immanuel. Rosenmüller gives a list of twenty-eight authors who have written dissertations upon it, and himself adds a twenty-ninth. Yet the subject is far from being exhausted. It is still asked:
(1) Were the mother and son persons belonging to the time of Isaiah himself, and if so, what persons? Or,
(2) Were they the Virgin Mary and her Son Jesus? Or,
(3) Had the prophecy a double fulfillment, first in certain persons who lived in Isaiah's time, and secondly in Jesus and his mother?
I. The first theory is that of the Jewish commentators. Originally, they suggested that the mother was Abi, the wife of Ahaz (2 Kings 18:2), and the son Hezekiah, who delivered Judah from the Assyrian power (see Justin, 'Dial. cum Tryphon.,' p. 262). But this was early disproved by showing that, according to the numbers of Kings (2 Kings 16:2; 2 Kings 18:2), Hezekiah was at least nine years old in the first year of Ahaz, before which this prophecy could not have been delivered (Isaiah 7:1). The second suggestion made identified the mother with Isaiah's wife, the "prophetess" of Isaiah 8:3, and made the son a child of his, called actually Immanuel, or else his son Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isaiah 8:1) under a symbolical designation. But ha-'almah, "the virgin," would be a very strange title for Isaiah to have given his wife, and the rank assigned to Immanuel in Isaiah 8:8 would not suit any son of Isaiah's. It remains to regard the 'almah as "some young woman actually present," name, rank, and position unknown, and Immanuel as her son, also otherwise unknown (Cheyne). But the grand exordium, "The Lord himself shall give you a sign - Behold!" and the rank of Immanuel (Isaiah 8:8), are alike against this.
II. The purely Messianic theory is maintained by Rosenmüller and Dr. Kay, but without any consideration of its difficulties. The birth of Christ was an event more than seven hundred years distant. In what sense and to what persons could it be a "sign" of the coming deliverance of the land from Rezin and Pekah? And, upon the purely Messianic theory, what is the meaning of ver. 16? Syria and Samaria were, in fact, crushed within a few years of the delivery of the prophecy. Why is their desolation put off, apparently, till the coming of the Messiah, and even till he has reached a certain age? Mr. Cheyne meets these difficulties by the startling statement that Isaiah expected the advent of the Messiah to synchronize with the Assyrian invasion, and consequently thought that before Rezin and Pekah were crushed he would have reached the age of discernment. But he does not seem to see that in this case the sigma was altogether disappointing and illusory. Time is an essential element of a prophecy which turns upon the word "before" (ver. 16). If this faith of Isaiah's disciples was aroused and their hopes raised by the announcement that Immanuel was just about to be born (Mr. Cheyne translates, "A virgin is with child"), what would be the revulsion of feeling when no Immanuel appeared?
III. May not the true account of the matter be that suggested by Bishop Lowth - that the prophecy had a double bearing and a double fulfillment? "The obvious and literal meaning of the prophecy is this," he says: "that within the time that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should arrive at such an age as to distinguish between good and evil, that is, within a few years, the enemies of Judah should be destroyed." But the prophecy was so worded, he adds, as to have a further meaning, which wan even "the original design and principal intention of the prophet," viz. the Messianic one. All the expressions of the prophecy do not suit both its intentions - some are selected with reference to the first, others with reference to the second fulfillment - but all suit one or the other, and some suit both. The first child may have received the name Immanuel (comp. Ittiel) from a faithful Jewish mother, who believed that God was with his people, whatever dangers threatened, and may have reached years of discretion about the time that Samaria was carried away captive. The second child is the true "Immanuel," "God with us," the king of Isaiah 8:8; it is his mother who is pointed at in the expression, "the virgin," and on his account is the grand preamble; through him the people of God, the true Israel, is delivered from its spiritual enemies, sin and Satan - two kings who continually threaten it.
"For head of Aram is Damascus, and head of Damascus Rezin, and in five-and-sixty years will Ephraim as a people be broken in pieces. And head of Ephraim is Samaria, and head of Samaria the son of Remalyahu; if ye believe not, surely ye will not remain." The attempt to remove Isaiah 7:8, as a gloss at variance with the context, which is supported by Eichhorn, Gesenius, Hitzig, Knobel, and others, is a very natural one; and in that case the train of thought would simply be, that the two hostile kingdoms would continue in their former relation without the annexation of Judah. But when we look more closely, it is evident that the removal of Isaiah 7:8 destroys both the internal connection and the external harmony of the clauses. For just as Isaiah 7:8 and Isaiah 7:8 correspond, so do Isaiah 7:9 and Isaiah 7:9. Ephraim, i.e., the kingdom of the ten tribes, which has entered into so unnatural and ungodly a covenant with idolatrous Syria, will cease to exist as a nation in the course of sixty-five years; "and ye, if ye do not believe, but make flesh your arm, will also cease to exist." Thus the two clauses answer to one another: Isaiah 7:8 is a prophecy announcing Ephraim's destruction, and Isaiah 7:9 a warning, threatening Judah with destruction, if it rejects the promise with unbelief. Moreover, the style of Isaiah 7:8 is quite in accordance with that of Isaiah (on בּעוד, see Isaiah 21:16 and Isaiah 16:14; and on מעם, "away from being a people," in the sense of "so that it shall be no longer a nation," Isaiah 17:1; Isaiah 25:2, and Jeremiah 48:2, Jeremiah 48:42). And the doctrinal objection, that the prophecy is too minute, and therefore taken ex eventu, has no force whatever, since the Old Testament prophecy furnishes an abundance of examples of the same kind (vid., Isaiah 20:3-4; Isaiah 38:5; Isaiah 16:14; Isaiah 21:16; Ezekiel 4:5., Isaiah 24:1., etc.). The only objection that can well be raised is, that the time given in Isaiah 7:8 is wrong, and is not in harmony with Isaiah 7:16. Now, undoubtedly the sixty-five years do not come out if we suppose the prophecy to refer to what was done by Tiglath-pileser after the Syro-Ephraimitish war, and to what was also done to Ephraim by Shalmanassar in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign, to which Isaiah 7:16 unquestionably refers, and more especially to the former. But there is another event still, through which the existence of Ephraim, not only as a kingdom, but also as a people, was broken up - namely, the carrying away of the last remnant of the Ephraimitish population, and the planting of colonies from Eastern Asia by Esarhaddon. (Note: The meaning of this king's name is Assur fratrem dedit (Asuṙacḣyiddin): vid., Oppert, Expedition, t. ii. p. 354.)
on Ephraimitish soil (2 Kings 17:24; Ezra 4:2). Whereas the land of Judah was left desolate after the Chaldean deportation, and a new generation grew up there, and those who were in captivity were once more enabled to return; the land of Ephraim was occupied by heathen settlers, and the few who were left behind were melted up with these into the mixed people of the Samaritans, and those in captivity were lost among the heathen. We have only to assume that what was done to Ephraim by Esarhaddon, as related in the historical books, took place in the twenty-second and twenty-third years of Manasseh (the sixth year of Esarhaddon), which is very probable, since it must have been under Esarhaddon that Manasseh was carried away to Babylon about the middle of his reign (2 Chronicles 33:11); and we get exactly sixty-five years from the second year of the reign of Ahaz to the termination of Ephraim's existence as a nation (viz., Ahaz, 14; Hezekiah, 29; Manasseh, 22; in all, 65). It was then that the unconditional prediction, "Ephraim as a people will be broken in pieces," was fulfilled (yēchath mē‛âm; it is certainly not the 3rd pers. fut. kal, but the niphal, Malachi 2:5), just as the conditional threat "ye shall not remain" was fulfilled upon Judah in the Babylonian captivity. נאמן signifies to have a fast hold, and האמין to prove fast-holding. If Judah did not hold fast to its God, it would lose its fast hold by losing its country, the ground beneath its feet. We have the same play upon words in 2 Chronicles 20:20. The suggestion of Geiger is a very improbable one, viz., that the original reading was בי תאמינו לא אם, but that בי appeared objectionable, and was altered into כּי. Why should it be objectionable, when the words form the conclusion to a direct address of Jehovah Himself, which is introduced with all solemnity? For this כּי, passing over from a confirmative into an affirmative sense, and employed, as it is here, to introduce the apodosis of the hypothetical clause, see 1 Samuel 14:39, and (in the formula עתּה כּי) Genesis 31:42; Genesis 43:10; Numbers 22:29, Numbers 22:33; 1 Samuel 14:30 : their continued existence would depend upon their faith, as this chi emphatically declares.
LinksIsaiah 7:14 Interlinear
Isaiah 7:14 Parallel Texts
Isaiah 7:14 NIV
Isaiah 7:14 NLT
Isaiah 7:14 ESV
Isaiah 7:14 NASB
Isaiah 7:14 KJV
Isaiah 7:14 Bible Apps
Isaiah 7:14 Parallel
Isaiah 7:14 Biblia Paralela
Isaiah 7:14 Chinese Bible
Isaiah 7:14 French Bible
Isaiah 7:14 German BibleThe miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ has perplexed many people, and has actually kept them from accepting the truth of Christianity. However, the Bible declares that God decided that his Son would have a miraculous entrance into humanity.Seven hundred years before the birth of Christ, the prophet Isaiah said, ‘Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel’ (Isaiah 7:14, NASB).‘The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.”
‘Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
‘The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit, will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God. ... For nothing will be impossible with God”’ (Luke 1:26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, NASB).The virgin birth is set down in the Bible as a historical fact. The writers who recorded the story were Matthew – an eyewitness to the events in the life of Jesus – and Luke, the doctor, who presents things in the life of Christ from the viewpoint of his mother, Mary.The passages in both Matthew and Luke are authentic, with no evidence at all that they were later additions to the text. The doctrine of the virgin birth has been believed by the Church from its beginning.Ignatius, who lived at the beginning of the second century, wrote to the Ephesians and said, 'For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary, according to a dispensation, of the seed of David but also of the Holy Ghost.’There are several reasons why the virgin birth was a necessity. The Bible teaches that the Word who became flesh was with God from the beginning (John 1:1). The fact of the pre-existence of Christ is testified many times in the New Testament (John 8:58, Philippians 2:5–11, Colossians 1:15, 16).When Jesus came into the world, he was not a newly created individual such as we are, but was rather the eternal Son of God. To be born into this world of the virgin Mary required divine intervention, and this is exactly what the gospels record.Another reason why Jesus needed to be virgin-born was because of his sinless nature. A basic New Testament teaching is that from the day he was born until the day he died, Jesus was without sin. To be a perfect sacrifice, he must himself be perfect – without sin. Since our race is contaminated with sin, a miraculous entrance into the world would be required, hence the virgin birth.Moreover, if Jesus had been sired by Joseph, he would not have been able to claim legal rights to the throne of David. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28–30, there could be no king in Israel who was a descendant of King Jeconiah, and Matthew 1:12 relates that Joseph was from the line of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been fathered by Joseph, he could not rightly inherit the throne of David, since he was a relative of the cursed line.The virgin birth of Christ is not only an historical fact, but it was also a necessary historical fact when one considers all the data.NOW, LETS LOOK AT OTHER OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES THAT POINT TO THE MESSIAH (JESUS CHRIST)AND HIS VIRGIN BIRTH..."Where does the Old Testament predict the coming of Jesus Christ?"
Answer: There are many Old Testament prophecies about Jesus Christ. Some interpreters place the number of Messianic prophecies in the hundreds. The following are those that are considered the clearest and most important.
Regarding Jesus’ birth—Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Isaiah 9:6: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Micah 5:2: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
Concerning Jesus' ministry and death—Zechariah 9:9: “Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Psalm 22:16-18: “Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.”
Likely the clearest prophecy about Jesus is the entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Isaiah 53:3-7 is especially unmistakable: “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
The “seventy sevens” prophecy in Daniel chapter 9 predicted the precise date that Jesus, the Messiah, would be “cut off.” Isaiah 50:6 accurately describes the beating that Jesus endured. Zechariah 12:10 predicts the “piercing” of the Messiah, which occurred after Jesus died on the cross. Many more examples could be provided, but these will suffice. The Old Testament most definitely prophesies the coming of Jesus as the Messiah."Which psalms predict the coming of Jesus Christ?"
Answer: The book of Psalms is a collection of inspired songs used in worship of God, and many of them foretell the coming of the Messiah and predict events that were fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ. In total, twenty-five different psalms (one out of every six psalms) include at least one messianic prophecy. Messianic psalms are quoted in eleven New Testament books, especially the gospels and the book of Acts. Below are nearly seventy specific references to Christ in the Psalms fulfilled in the New Testament. Some scholars see additional allusions, but we’ve only included those with the clearest connections to Jesus. The following list provides the reference(s) in Psalms where each prophecy is found and the New Testament fulfillment:
Concerning the Messiah’s birth:
1. The Messiah will come from the lineage of David (Psalm 89:3–4, 29–36; 132:11–17; Matthew 1:1).
2. The Messiah will come for all people (Psalm 18:49; Ephesians 3:4–6).
3. The Messiah will know His Father from childhood (Psalm 22:9; Luke 2:40).
4. The Messiah will be called by God while still in the womb (Psalm 22:10; Luke 1:30–33).
Concerning the Messiah’s nature and name:
5. The Messiah will be called King of the Jews (Psalm 2:6; John 12:12–13; 18:32).
6. The Messiah will be the Son of God (Psalm 2:7; Luke 1:31–35; Matthew 3:16–17; Hebrews 1:5–6). 7. The Messiah is God (Psalm 45:6–7b; Hebrews 1:8–9).
8. The Messiah will call God His Father (Psalm 89:26; Matthew 11:27).
9. The Messiah will be God’s only “begotten” Son (Psalm 89:27; Mark 16:6; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5).
10. The Messiah will be eternal (Psalm 102:25–27a;Revelation 1:8; Hebrews 1:10–12).
11. The Messiah is the creator of all things (Psalm 102:25–27b; John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:10–12).
12. The Messiah will be Lord and King (Psalm 110:1a; Matthew 22:41–45).
13. The Messiah will be a Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 6:17–20).
14. The Messiah will be the “Stone” rejected by the builders (Psalm 118:22; Matthew 21:42–43).
Concerning the Messiah’s ministry:
15. Infants will give praise to the Messiah (Psalm 8:2; Matthew 21:15–16).
16. The Messiah will reveal that the Hebrew Scriptures were written of Him (Psalm 40:6–8b; Luke 24:44; John 5:39–40).
17. The Messiah will do God’s (His Father’s) will (Psalm 40:7–8; John 5:30).
18. The Messiah will not conceal His mission from believing people (Psalm 40:9–10; Luke 4:16–21).
19. The Messiah will communicate a message of mercy (Psalm 45:2; 55:12–14; Luke 4:22).
20. The Messiah will be angered by unethical practices by the Jews in the temple (Psalm 69:9a; John 2:13–17).
21. The Messiah will teach in parables (Psalm 78:2; Matthew 13:34–35).
22. The Messiah will calm the stormy sea (Psalm 107:28–29; Matthew 8:24–26).
23. The Messiah will act with righteousness (Psalm 45:6–7c; John 5:30).
24. The Messiah will come in the name of the Lord (Psalm 118:26; Matthew 21:9).
Concerning the Messiah’s betrayal and death:
25. Political/religious leaders will conspire against the Messiah (Psalm 2:1–3; Matthew 26:3–4; Mark 3:6).
26. The Messiah will feel forsaken by God at His crucifixion (Psalm 22:1b; Mark 15:34).
27. The Messiah will pray without ceasing before His death (Psalm 22:2; Matthew 26:38–39).
28. The Messiah will be despised and rejected by His own (Psalm 22:6; Luke 23:21–23).
29. The Messiah will be mocked (Psalm 22:7; 109:25; Matthew 27:39).
30. Unbelievers will say to the Messiah, “He trusted in God, let Him now deliver Him” (Psalm 22:8; Matthew 27:41–43).
31. The Messiah will be abandoned by His disciples (Psalm 22:11; 69:20; Mark 14:50).
32. The Messiah will be encompassed by wicked beings (Psalm 22:12–13; Colossians 2:15).
33. From the Messiah’s body will flow blood and water (Psalm 22:14a; John 19:34).
34. The Messiah will be crucified (Psalm 22:14b; Matthew 27:35).
35. The Messiah will thirst while dying (Psalm 22:15; 69:21; John 19:28).
36. The Messiah will be observed by Gentiles at His crucifixion (Psalm 22:16a; Luke 23:36).
37. The Messiah will be observed by Jews at His crucifixion (Psalm 22:16b; Matthew 27:41–43).
38. The Messiah’s hands and feet will be pierced (Psalm 22:16c; Matthew 27:38).
39. The Messiah’s garments will be parted among the soldiers through the casting of lots (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23–24).
40. The Messiah will be accused by false witnesses (Psalm 27:12; 35:11; 109:2; Matthew 26:59–61).
41. The Messiah will cry out to God, “Into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Psalm 31:5; Luke 23:46).
42. There will be many attempts to kill the Messiah (Psalm 31:13; Matthew 27:1).
43. The Messiah will have no bones broken (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32–33).
44. The Messiah will be hated without cause (Psalm 35:19; John 18:19–23; 15:24–25).
45. The Messiah will be silent as a lamb before His accusers (Psalm 38:13–14; Matthew 26:62–63).
46. The Messiah will be God’s sacrificial lamb for redemption of all mankind (Psalm 40:6–8a; Hebrews 10:10–13).
47. The Messiah will be betrayed by one of His own disciples (Psalm 41:9; Mark 14:17–18).
48. The Messiah will be hated and rejected without cause (Psalm 69:4; Luke 23:13–22; John 15:24–25).
49. The Messiah will be condemned for God’s sake (Psalm 69:7, 9; Matthew 26:65–67; Romans 15:3).
50. The Messiah will be rejected by the Jews (Psalm 69:8a; John 1:11).
51. The Messiah’s very own brothers will reject Him (Psalm 69:8b; John 7:3–5).
52. The Messiah’s heart will be broken (Psalm 69:20a; John 19:34).
53. The Messiah will be offered gall mingled with vinegar while dying (Psalm 69:21a; Matthew 27:34).
54. The Messiah will offer up prayer for His enemies (Psalm 109:4; Luke 23:34).
55. The Messiah’s betrayer will have a short life (Psalm 109:8a; Acts 1:16–18; John 17:12).
56. The Messiah’s betrayer will be replaced by a more faithful man (Psalm 109:8b; Acts 1:20–26).
Concerning the Messiah’s resurrection and exaltation:
57. The Messiah will be resurrected (Psalm 16:8–10a; Matthew 28:6; Acts 2:25–32).
58. The Messiah’s body will not see corruption (natural decay) (Psalm 16:8–10b; Acts 13:35–37).
59. The Messiah will be glorified into the presence of God (Psalm 16:11; Acts 2:25–33).
60. The Messiah will ask God for His inheritance (Psalm 2:8a; John 17:4–24).
61. The Messiah will have complete authority over all things (Psalm 2:8b–9; 8:6; Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:1–2).
62. The Messiah will destroy those who do not honor Him (Psalm 2:12; John 3:36).
63. The Messiah will bring many people into the family of God (Psalm 22:22; Hebrews 2:10–12; Matthew 12:50; John 20:14).
64. The Messiah’s enemies will stumble and fall (Psalm 27:2; John 18:3–6).
65. The Messiah’s throne will be eternal (Psalm 45:6–7a; Luke 1:31–33; Hebrews 1:8–9).
66. The Messiah will ascend back into heaven (Psalm 68:18a; Luke 24:51; Ephesians 4:8).
67. The Messiah will give good gifts unto believing men (Psalm 68:18b; Matthew 10:1; Ephesians 4:7–11).
68. The Messiah will be exalted to the right hand of God (Psalm 80:17; 110:1, 5; Acts 5:31).Psalms: Looking Forward to the Messiah
(Psalms 2, 110, and 22)An expectancy of God's deliverance through the coming Messiah is interwoven through a number of psalms, in fact, the Psalms is the Old Testament book most quoted in the New Testament. In many cases these passages find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ Jesus our Savior.1
Messianic Psalms and the Nature of Prophecy
Before we begin, however, we need to define what we mean by a "Messianic Psalm." There are two alternatives:
- Narrow sense. This view sees a messianic psalm as prophetic and having no direct message of significance to the Old Testament period; they only predict the coming Messiah.
- General sense. Psalms that anticipate the Messiah but also have meaning in a contemporary context of the writer.2
I think I find myself finding common ground with both definitions. I believe that some psalms are prophetic of the Messiah Jesus. Given under the inspiration of the Spirit, they sometimes speak about concepts and persons beyond the author's knowledge and understanding.In my study of prophecy,3 I conclude that true prophets -- Old Testament, New Testament, or today -- don't necessarily understand all that they are saying to the degree that they could expound on their prophecies and interpret them accurately in advance. They may not even know that they are speaking in prophecy. They are given the words from the Holy Spirit and speak or write those words. The fulfillment and interpretation are usually far beyond them, to be revealed by God in his own good time."You will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay." (Psalm 16:10)David probably spoke of his confidence that in a particular instance God would deliver him rather than letting him be killed by his enemies. But as the apostles boldly declared, his words find their ultimate fulfillment in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (Acts 2:25-28; 13:35).In this chapter we'll consider three additional psalms which, to Christians, clearly point to Christ. They formed part of the core of the early church's apologetic to Judaism that ultimately won tens of thousands of Jews to the Christian faith in the first century.Psalm 2 - You Are My Son, Today I Have Begotten You
Psalm 2 has no author given nor title to explain its context or use, though it was doubtless used in ancient Judaism to refer to the Davidic king, perhaps at the enthronement of a new king. However, the New Testament reads it as speaking far beyond any earthly monarch. The relationship to the Messiah and Yahweh described in this psalm is far closer than could be said of any Davidic king prior to Christ.The Nations Conspire Against Yahweh and His Messiah (2:1-6)
"1Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.
3'Let us break their chains,' they say,
'and throw off their fetters.'4The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
5Then he rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6'I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill.'" (2:1-6)The psalmist is speaking about an international conspiracy against Yahweh and his King. While its first readers saw this in terms of the nations that surrounded Israel and the descendent of David who ruled in Jerusalem (until 587 BC), the passage is framed with a cosmic dimension. In Revelation this spiritual rebellion against God and his Messiah is couched in terms of the woman and her male child (Revelation 12:1-6), the battle between the archangel Michael and the dragon (Revelation 12:7-17), the Antichrist and the False Prophet (Revelation 13), and the Whore of Babylon (Revelation 17). It is a spiritual battle fought in heavenly places.The term "Anointed One" (NIV) or "anointed" (KJV, NRSV) is māshīaḥ̣, from the verb māshaḥ, "to anoint, spread a liquid."4 Anointing was used in a ritual sense to apply oil to set apart to God religious items (Exodus 40:9-11) and especially people to divine service -- priests (Exodus 29:7; Leviticus 21:10; Numbers 35:25), kings (1 Samuel 10:1; 15:17; 16:13; 2 Samuel 12:7; Psalm 18:50), and finally Yahweh's ultimate King, the Messiah (Isaiah 61:1; Daniel 9:24-26).The Apostle Peter preached that Psalm 2:1-2 are prophetic of the conspiracy of Herod and Pontius Pilate that resulted in Christ's crucifixion (Acts 4:25-26). The "nations" refer to the Gentiles (the Romans), and "kings of the earth" and "rulers" to Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the Sanhedrin.You Are My Son (2:7-8)
The psalmist may have initially thought he was speaking of the Davidic king as a "son" in the figurative sense portrayed in the Davidic Covenant:"I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men." (2 Samuel 7:14-15)5But Psalm 2:7-9 goes far beyond this sense. Verse 7 speaks of an especially close relationship between the Father and Son, Yahweh and his Messiah, that is difficult to interpret as speaking of a merely human king. Verse 8 seems to speak of a king that rules over the whole earth, not just the nations that surround Israel itself:"7I will proclaim the decree of the LORD:
He said to me, 'You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.'
8Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
9You will rule them with an iron scepter;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery." (2:7-9)God uses this Father-Son terminology when he speaks in a voice from heaven at both Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3:17) and at his Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5): "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."In John's Gospel, Jesus used this kind of Father-Son metaphor extensively, to such an extent that the Jews believed he was applying it in the sense of claiming to be divine himself (John 8:54; 10:30-33), accused him of blasphemy, and tried to stone him.The revealed truth of this Father-Son metaphor is so strong and important that feminist attempts in our day to remove the male, "paternalistic" overtones of the metaphor come up short and seriously shortchange our understanding. They typically fall back to Creator-Christ terminology which, though true, gut the important relational elements of the Father-Son metaphor which are clearly part of the relation of God and Christ. This Father-Son metaphor is first clearly revealed in Psalm 2:7.The phrase "today I have begotten you" (2:7) uses the verb yālad, which, when used of females referring to the act of giving birth and when used of males refers to the act of begetting or insemination. Here it may have a figurative sense.5 In Christian theology, of course, the Father-Son relationship is seen as an especially fitting metaphor to explain the relationship between God and Jesus, not as a literal, physical phenomenon, but as an irreplaceable metaphor which is essential to our understanding of the Godhead as revealed by Jesus in the Bible.6 Verse 7 is quoted as referring to Jesus in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5.Today I Have Begotten You (2:7)
This verse:"You are my Son;
today I have begotten you." (2:7)is also the source of the "only begotten son" terminology in John's writings (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; 5:1, 18).The sense in which Jesus was begotten has spawned some heresies in church history. In the days leading up to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, the Gnostic-leaning Alexandrian priest Arius (c. 250/256 - 336 AD) claimed that since Jesus was "begotten," that there was a time that he didn't exist, and that being "begotten" meant that, in a sense, he was created by God. The Jehovah's Witnesses have continued this idea that "only begotten" meant that Jesus was created. The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation infamously translates John 1:1 as "the word was a god" rather than "the Word was God" (all other modern translations). Some liberal theologians, seeking to deny the inherent divinity of Jesus, have suggested that Jesus was an ordinary man who was "begotten" when he received the Holy Spirit at his baptism.It is impossible to trace all these arguments here, but orthodox Christians have always maintained Christ's essential divinity, as clearly delineated in the Nicene Creed (originally in 325 and finally in 381 AD):"We believe in ... one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father...."The Nicene Creed made clear that Jesus was not some kind of divine human or lesser God, but that his divinity was on a par with that of the Father Himself -- "very God of very God," that is, "true God coming from the true God." The idea of "begotten, not made" made clear that this was not an act of creation, but that Jesus had the same essence or "substance" (hypostatis) as the Father, he was formed of the same divine "stuff" as the Father -- that is, Jesus is fully divine, not some kind of lesser divinity.I've probably said more than you ever wanted to know about Jesus being "begotten," but since it figures so prominently in our understanding of who Jesus is, I felt that it is important for you to know.Kiss the Son (2:10-12)
The psalm concludes:"10Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.
12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him." (2:10-12)Verse 12a has been translated variously "kiss the Son" (KJV, NIV), "kiss his feet" (NRSV, NJB), and "kiss the mighty one" (New English Bible). The Hebrew text (bar, "son") seems to be best translated "kiss the Son." The other translations are based on emendations or conjectures of what a "corrupted" text originally said. But whether the translation is "kiss the Son" (as seems called for by the text) or "kiss his feet," the point is that the kings and rulers of the earth need to submit to Yahweh's anointed Son with the kiss of homage before he comes with might to put down their rebellion towards him.
Q1. (Psalm 2) What does Psalm 2 teach us about Yahweh's "anointed" king? Why do you think the apostles saw this passage as referring to Jesus the Messiah? What does the passage teach about the importance of submission to Jesus the Christ before it is too late?http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=693
Psalm 110 - The Messiah as Priest and King
Psalm 110 is attributed to David and referred to as "a psalm," which probably means an accompanied song.The Messiah Is Greater than David (110:1)
It is Jesus himself who pointed to this psalm as one that refers to the Messiah:"The LORD says to my Lord:
'Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.'" (110:1)Matthew records:"41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42'What do you think about the Christ ? Whose son is he?'
'The son of David,' they replied.
43He said to them, "'How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him "Lord"? For he says,
44"The Lord said to my Lord:
'Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies under your feet.'"
45If then David calls him "Lord," how can he be his son?' 46No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions." (Matthew 22:41-46)Though the Jews of Jesus' time saw Psalm 110 as Messianic, they saw the Messiah in purely human terms, as a physical descendent of David, and thus inferior to David. Jesus' question, based on his careful understanding of this psalm, revealed the "greater than David" nature of the Messiah.A Universal Messianic Rule (110:2-3)
Now the psalmist declares that Yahweh will extend the Messiah's kingdom far beyond the boundaries of Israel:"2The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion;
you will rule in the midst of your enemies.
3Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy majesty,
from the womb of the dawn
you will receive the dew of your youth." (110:2-3)Messiah's rule will be resisted by his enemies (as in Psalm 2), but will be extended by force with the Messiah at the head of a mighty army (verse 3; see Revelation 19:11-21). Throughout the Psalms is the image of Yahweh as the Mighty Warrior. Yahweh's Messiah, the one that reigns for him and extends his rule, is the Mighty Warrior par excellence!The Eternal Priest from Melchizedek's Order (110:4)
The Jews of Jesus' day understood Messiah coming as a conquering kingwho would set up Yahweh's kingdom on earth, reviving the glory days of David's rule. What they did not understand was the Messiah as a priest. Verse 4 presents a cryptic image:"The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind:
'You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.'" (110:4)Melchizedek was a contemporary of Abraham. He was both king of Jerusalem and priest of the Most High God. Because of his position as a priest of the God that Abraham served, Abraham presented him with one tenth of the spoils of battle (Genesis 14:18-20).The writer of Hebrews, in an extensive exposition of Psalm 110:4 (Hebrews 5:6-10; 6:20-7:28), clearly sees Melchizedek as a type of Christ our High Priest (though not as an actual appearance of Christ himself, as some hold).8Psalm 110 combines the roles of king and priest in a way that is unheard of elsewhere in the Old Testament.9 This King and Priest of Psalm 110 not only rules for Yahweh, he acts as a mediator between man and God to atone for man's sins. Only when we understand Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, who in himself bore our sins and carried our iniquities, can we understand how Jesus served as a priest to bring us to God. The Apostle Paul put it this way:"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men...." (1 Timothy 2:5-6; also Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; and Mark 10:45)Messiah Will Subdue and Judge the Nations (110:5-7)
Psalm 110 concludes with a poetic prophecy of how the Messiah will exert his rule over all his enemies, fulfilled ultimately at the Battle of Armageddon and the final battle at the end of days spoken of in Revelation:"5The Lord is at your right hand;
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
6He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.
7He will drink from a brook beside the way;
therefore he will lift up his head." (110:5-7)Verse 7 concludes the psalm with the Warrior-Messiah pausing to refresh himself at a brook as he is in pursuit of his enemy, and then continuing on, like Gideon at the Jordan, "faint yet pursuing." The final promise, "Therefore he will lift up his head" (7b) looks forward to his final victory over his enemy.
Q2. (Psalm 110) Why do you think that Jesus asked the Pharisees about verse 1, "If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" What point was Jesus making? How does Jesus combine the roles of Warrior-King and Priest in his ministry to us and to this world? How do you reconcile the violence suggested in verses 5-6 with Jesus as "Prince of Peace"?http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=694
Psalm 22 - My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?
Psalm 22 is a remarkable psalm indeed. In the context of the Old Testament, it can be seen as a lament followed by a hymn of praise. But in the context of the New Testament, it must be clearly seen as a psalm pointing again and again to the crucifixion of Christ. Frost went so far as to call this psalm the "Fifth Gospel" account of the crucifixion.10 Kidner titles it, "The Psalm of the Cross."11 It is quite clear that Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 together formed the core of Jesus' and the early church's understanding of the crucifixion.Peter notes that David was a prophet (Acts 2:30-31). Indeed he was filled with the Spirit at his anointing. But did David know what he was saying? I doubt it. When he wrote the first part of the psalm, he probably was expressing his own deep lament in highly figurative terms -- figures that were brought to his mind by the Holy Spirit. This side of the cross, however, those figures speak to us strongly of Jesus' crucifixion. Were they intended by David to refer to the cross? No. Were they intended by the Spirit to speak of Jesus' crucifixion. Of that I have no doubt. But I'm getting ahead of myself.Why Have You Forsaken Me? (22:1-2)
Verse 1 was on Jesus' lips during his crucifixion:"1My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent." (22:1-2)Before the Psalms were numbered, a particular psalm would be referred to by its first line. In speaking the first line of Psalm 22, Jesus pointed not to just the first verse, but to the whole psalm.However, his quoting the first line may be significant as well. Though we are probing here beyond the explicit teaching of scripture, when Jesus was on the cross bearing our sins, he may have felt spiritual separation from the holy God because of our sin he was bearing. He felt alone because he took our sin and guilt upon himself.
Q3. (Psalm 22:1) Why do you think Jesus spoke the words of Psalm 22:1? What was he seeking to express? What was he feeling? How did God answer his plea?http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=695
God Is Enthroned on Our Praises (22:3)
A phrase commonly cited by worship leaders comes from the KJV of Psalm 22:3:"But thou art holy,
O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel." (KJV)"Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises of Israel." (NRSV)"Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel." (NIV)The keyword to understand clearly is "inhabitest" (KJV), "enthroned" (NIV, NRSV), "make your home" (NJB). It is the verb yāshab, "sit, remain, dwell." The word's meaning is based on the context. In the Qal stem it can mean (1) "to sit on anything, (2) "to remain, stay, linger," (3) "to dwell in a house, city, territory," and (4) of a place, city, or country being inhabited.12Could the idea of "inhabit, dwell" be intended here? Yes. But because of the context of the first assertion, "You are holy," I believe yāshab refers to Yahweh's splendor and majesty, an idea conveyed by the concept of enthronement better than by that of habitation. God is everywhere; there is nowhere we can go where he is not (Psalm 139:7-10). But from our human perspective, when we worship and praise God we can certainly sense his presence much more easily. By our praise, we declare him King, exalt him, and thus "enthrone" him before us.Comparisons to the Crucifixion (22:6-18)
Rather than try to provide an exposition of the entire psalm, for the purposes of considering the messianic aspects of the psalm, I will focus on the verses that have the greatest correspondence with Jesus' crucifixion. While I have no doubt that the actual events of Jesus' crucifixion took place as recorded in the Gospels, it is probable that the terminology by which they were communicated was influenced by the words of this startling psalm that we are studying:
"But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people." (22:6)"He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not." (Isaiah 53:3)"All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
'He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.'" (22:7-8)"He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him." (Luke 18:32-33) "The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, 'He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.'" (Luke 23:35) "Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me." (22:12-13)"Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed." (Acts 4:27) "I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me." (22:14)"Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.'" (Matthew 26:38a). "And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground." (Luke 22:44) "My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death." (22:15)"Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, 'I am thirsty.' (John 19:28) "Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet." (22:16)"And they crucified him." (Mark 15:25) "They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son." (Zechariah 12:10) "I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing." (22:17-18)"And they divided up his clothes by casting lots." (Luke 23:34) "When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. 'Let's not tear it,' they said to one another. 'Let's decide by lot who will get it.'" (John 19:23-24) David's lament seemed to be about his own sorrow, but in reality he was relating the lament of the Son of David, the Messiah himself.The Conclusion of Praise (22:19-31)
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn --
for he has done it." (22:30-31)His people would finally appreciate the depths to which the Son of God and Son of Man went to redeem us. We do declare his righteousness! And we will pass on the "Greatest Story Ever Told" to our children's children, "to a people yet unborn -- for He has done it!"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.