Isaiah 7:14-16

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 maybe 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; Judges 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 "iswith child and shallbear." 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 7:14-16

Probably 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 importof 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 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. 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 birthof 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 originalsense 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 -almâhdoes 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 namingof the child. Perhaps the most persuasive presentation of this view is that given by Duhm. According to that expositor, the -almâhis 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 -almâha youngwoman?

(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 historyof 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 contrastbetween 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 Messiahis 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 allegoricalinterpretation 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 -almâhin 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 -almâhcould 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 Academyof 8 June, 1895.