Taken from: Abner Chou, The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophet and Apostles (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2018), 114-18
Isaiah’s mentality in this text
does not merely focus on the present but the future:
1. The context of Isaiah 7 shows
Isaiah’s redemptive historical awareness. Isaiah 7 is not the first chapter of
the book. The previous chapters have set up important concepts and issues
Isaiah 7 addresses. This revolves around how God will send Israel into exile
because of their sin (5:26-30) but will reverse this in the end with a glorious
kingdom (2:1-4; 4:2-6). Isaiah’s call reiterates this paradigm. His job is to
proclaim Israel’s condemnation (Isa. 6:8-12) so that in the end, they will be
made holy (Isa. 6:13). Isaiah’s mission is one that connects present with the
eschatological. Isaiah 7 is not in a vacuum. Its context suggests the present
situation discussed relates to something grander.
2. The immediate context exhibits
this very perspective. Isaiah meets Ahaz with his son, Shear-Jashub, whose name
means “the remnant will return” (7:3). The language is used earlier in Isaiah
(cf. 1:26, 27; 4:3) showing the situation in Isaiah 7 is not just about the
present bug God’s greater agenda of exile and restoration. Likewise, Isaiah’s
use of the “house of David” evidences Isaiah believed the current situation was
a threat not only to Ahaz but the entire Davidic dynasty (7:2). Interestingly
enough, the threat against the Davidic dynasty is the immediate context and
concern of the sign (7:13). Again, the immediate context of Isaiah 7 does not
merely describe a historical situation but one situated in a larger plan.
Isaiah is not just speaking to the present situation.
3. The grammar of the sign
indicates this. . . . some have interpreted Isaiah 7:14-15 to say the child is
a sign that the northern kingdom and Aram will be defeated. The language makes
mention of the present situation for sure. However, this is not precisely what
Isaiah says. Notice, the wording states the son will eat curds and honey (v.
15) because (כִּי) before the child is old enough to choose between good
and evil, the kings’ lands will be desolate (v. 16). Technically, the
resolution of the conflict with Ephraim and Aram is not the content or
purpose of the sign but rather the reason the sign occurs the way it
does [75]. It answers the question “why does Immanuel eat curds and
honey, the food of poverty?” (cf. 7:22), as opposed to “what is the
significance of Isaiah’s sign?” Hence, to say Immanuel is a sign for Israel’s
present deliverance is not grammatically correct. Rather, the present
circumstances will cause the tragic circumstances surrounding Immanuel’s birth
and childhood. Again, the present connects with the future. [76]
4. Understanding this helps make
sense of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8. . . . some scholars parallel
Maher-shalal-hash-baz with Immaneul. Indeed, In Isaiah 8:4,
Maher-shalal-hash-baz signifies the upcoming desolation of Ephraim and Aram as
predicted in Isaiah 7:16. That is the child’s prophetic purpose. However, we
just observed such desolation of those kingdoms explains why Immanuel
will be born in poverty, and not what Immanuel is all about.
Accordingly, Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Immanuel do not share the same purpose.
They relate, but are not the same sign. Maher-shala-hash-baz is the sign that
the harsh circumstances surrounding the Messiah’s birth will take place.
Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the near prophecy that confirms one in the more
distant future (Immanuel’s birth in exile). Kidner’s observation (reiterated by
Motyer) sums this up nicely:
The
sign of Immanuel . . . although it concerned ultimate events, did imply a
pledge for the immediate future in that however soon Immanuel were born,
the present threat would have passed before he would even be aware of it. But
the time of his birth was undisclosed; hence the new sign is given to deal only
with the contemporary scene. (Kidney, “Isaiah,” 639; Motyer, Isaiah, 90)
5. The rest of Isaiah 8 further
supports that Immanuel is not Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Isaiah’s wife does not
name the child contrary to what is prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. isa. 8:3;
Luke 1:31). Isaiah also records how Immanuel will ultimately triumph over
Judah’s enemies and end exile (Isa. 8:10). Based upon this, Immanuel seems to
be different than Maher-shalal-hash-baz. After all, the latter never delivers Judah
from its enemies. Thus, Isaiah differentiates Immanuel from
Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
6. Isaiah 8 also affirms the
logic we observed in Isaiah 7:14-16. It describes how the Assyrian invasion
will desolate Aram and Ephraim. However, it also discusses how the invasion
will flood Judah, the “land of Immanuel” (8:5-8). If Immanuel is a sign that
Israel’s enemies will be destroyed resulting in Judah’s salvation, why does
Isaiah 8 state the opposite result occurs? Instead, the description in Isaiah 8
fits with what I have suggested above. Isaiah 7 prophesies Immanuel would live
in poverty because of the present circumstances. Isaiah 8 states the desolation
of Judah’s enemies would lead to Judah’s own desolation and so Immanuel
will be born in exilic conditions.
7. The rest of Isaiah 8-11
reinforces a messianic perspective to Isaiah 7:14. At the end of Isaiah 8, the
prophet describes how Israel and its king will collapse in darkness (8:21-22)
(Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 239). However, from that darkness a light will
come (9:1-2 [Heb., 8:23-0:1]) based upon the birth of a child (v. 6 [Heb., v.
5]) who bears the authority of God upon his shoulders. This messianic
individual in Isaiah 9:6 (Heb., v. 5) corresponds with Isaiah 7:14 (Ibid.;
Motyer, Isaiah, 102-5). Both records the birth and naming of a child
associated with God’s presence (“God with us” versus “Mighty God”). Both
discuss how a child is born in exile and trial. Both texts ensure the security
of the Davidic dynasty by virtue of the child’s birth. With such parallels,
Isaiah arguably equates his prophecy in 7:14 with the messianic figure in 9: 6
(Heb. 9:5). This reinforces a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah
11 also reiterates this. That chapter introduces a child-deliverer (Isa. 11:2)
whose dominion is at the culmination of history (11:9-12) (Oswalt, Isaiah
1-39, 239. Oswalt states “But this person will also be a child, and it is
inescapable that the childish aspect of the deliverer is important to Isaiah,
for it appears again in 11:6, 8 [as it is, of course, implied in 7:3, 14;
8:1-4, 8, 18].” See also Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament,
158-64; Motyer, Isaiah, 101-2). With that, Isaiah 11 repeats the same
pattern of a royal child born who secures ultimate deliverance and reign. The similarities
and pattern argue that Isaiah tied all of these texts together. Isaiah shows
how the Son born of a virgin in exile (Isa. 7:14) is the Son/Child who will
conquer the exile (9:6 [Heb., v. 5]) and ultimately restore the world
(11:1-12). Again, later texts reinforce Isaiah 7:14 is not just about the
present but the future.
These factors illustrate what we
have observed in this chapter. Isaiah did know complex theological concepts
like the Messiah. His writing develops that idea (Isa. 9:6 [Heb., v. 5]; 11:2)
which clarifies the nature of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah also did not strictly write
about his current situation but had in mind how the present relates to the
future. Hence he talks about how the current crisis relates to the sign of the
ultimate deliverance for security for the Davidic dynasty (Immanuel). He writes
with greater complexity than we might originally anticipate.
One factor remains.
Intertextuality not only helps us to see Isaiah’s directionality but also his
theological depth. This relates to the sign itself, the virgin birth. One might
ask how the sign of a young woman (rightly assumed to be a virgin) giving birth
participates in Isaiah’s theological agenda [81]. Scholars have
consistently wondered about this reality (Wegner, “How Many Virgin Births?”
467; Walton, “Isaiah 7:14,” 297; Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 210-11).
Intertextuality can aid in this discussion. The phrase “conceive and give
birth” (הרה + ילד) is actually a formula reiterated in the canon. The formula
applies to individuals including Eve (Gen. 4:1), Hagar (16:11), Sarah (21:2),
Jochebed (Ex. 2:2), the mother of Samson (Judg. 13:5), and Hannah (1 Sam 1:20) [83].
Ruth is a close parallel (4:10) [84]. The births are often miraculous
because God overcomes barrenness (Judg. 13:5; 1 Sam. 1:20) or provides
protection from harm (Gen. 16:11). Accordingly, the sons born are important
individuals in God’s plan.
Notes for the Above
[75] To make verse 16 the content of the sign,
one would have to take the particle כִּי (“for”) as content (“that”), as
opposed to causal or explanatory (“for” or “because”). However, two factors
make this unlikely. First, to make verse 16 the content of the sign in verse 14
is unnatural since the verses are quite far apart. Second, technically the participle
modifies the verb in verse 15. The boy will eat curds and honey because the
land will be forsaken. Thus, to claim that the sign is one of the destruction of
the land is mistaken grammatically.
[76] An additional grammatical observation
supports this assertion. “Young woman” and “conceive” are in a predicate
adjective construction. Conceive (or be pregnant) directly modifies the young
woman in her current status. Just as the “man is good” means that the man in
his current description as a man is good, so the virgin woman will get pregnant
as a virgin. This counters the suggestion that while עלמה may imply virginity,
the young woman in Isaiah’s day would marry, become pregnant, and then deliver
a child. This too backs the notion that Isaiah had in mind a miraculous
conception and birth par excellence. Contra Wegner, “How Many Virgin
Births?” 472. Wegner permits Isaiah 7:14 to influence the discussion which is
circular reasoning. He suggests, based
upon Ugaritic literature (particularly the Nikkal poem) that glmy cannot
include the semantic idea of virgin (471). In dealing with the Nikkal poem, it
appears in the context that there is a prayer involved. Hence, the imperfect tld
(go vie birth) is not past-referring but rather denotes a request. See
Vawther, “The Ugaritic Use of GLMT,” 321; Goetze, “Nikkal Poem,” 353-60. If
this is the case, then his reasoning from Ugaritic is less effective.
[81] Space does not permit an adequate
lexicographical analysis of עלמה, as opposed to בתולה. However, the idea of a
young woman who is marriageable and thereby presumably a virgin is defensible.
See Wegner, “How Many Virgin Births?” 471-72. Wegner critiques Walton’s
construal of the evidence for a helpful discussion. I disagree with Wegner’s
methodology of including Isaiah 7:14 in the discussion. If Isaiah 7:14 is the
verse in question bringing it as evidence of a certain lexical definition is
circular reasoning. See also Feinberg, “The Virgin Birth in the Old Testament
and Isaiah 7:14,” 251-58; Niessen, “The Virginity of the עַלְמָה in Isaiah
7:14,” 133-41. Two passages also raise attention to this issue, including
Isaiah 54:4 where the term is used supposedly with a barren woman as well as
Proverbs 30:19-20 where an adulterous woman is in the context. Reading Isaiah
54:4 as synonymous parallelism is misleading. Lexically if עלמה refers to
youthfulness, we are dealing with antithetical or merismatic parallelism. In
the latter case, it demonstrates that Israel had been shameful in the context
of her youthfulness as well as her adulthood. Seeing both other prophetic
appeals to Israel’s youthfulness as a sexually promiscuous woman (cf. Hos. 1-2)
as well as the immediate context, which talks how God will be the faithful
husband and make her glorious (Isa. 54:5-12). Zion’s perversity as the shame of
her youthfulness reinforces the notion of virginity rather than counters it.
Similarly, if one takes Proverbs 30:19-20 as the adulterous woman perverting
the purity of relationship between man and עלמה, then it implies the
chastity/purity of the עלמה. That too harmonizes with the notion of implied
virginity in the term.
[83] Genesis 16:11 uses a weqatal construction,
instead of a participle found in Judges 13:5 and Isaiah 7:14. The use of weqatal
probably accommodates Hagar’s current pregnant state whereas the participle
instans refers to a future event (i.e., that both conception and birth are
future). See GKC §112.d (332); IBHS §32.2.4 (535); 37.6f (628). The
implication in both Judges 13:5 and Isaiah 7:14 is that the women were not
pregnant but would become so in their barren state or in their state as an עלמה.
[84] ילד occurs in three hundred sixty verses
without הרה. Hence, the “conceive and give birth” formula is not just
colloquial but a subset of communicating unique births.