Scripture Text (NRSV)
Isaiah 7:10-16
7:10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, saying,
7:11 Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or
high as heaven.
7:12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to
the test.
7:13 Then Isaiah said: "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too
little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also?
7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the
young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him
Immanuel.
7:15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to
refuse the evil and choose the good.
7:16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose
the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be
deserted.
Comments:
Have you thought about this sign thing? Ahaz did NOT want to go
there!! He did not want a sign. But you know God--He gave him a sign
anyway! But, did Ahaz even recognize the sign?
Do we do this? Does God send us signs and we choose not to receive
them? What about September 11? That was a sign, God did not send the
disaster, but it is a sign that we should do a reality check!! There
is very real evil in this world! We need to make sure that we shun
that evil and reconnect with God. This scripture points to the Christ
child. A sign of Christmas.
What are not God's signs? A Christmas tree, shopping, mad baking? We
need to settle down and concentrate on the signs that God gives us,
not the world!
If this is to be a sign for King Ahaz, the birth must take place soon,
not 700 years in the future. Thus, the "modern" translations which use
"young woman' rather than "virgin" are much better, unless there is a
virgin birth back then, too. I don't think so!.
I think the young woman is Mrs. Isaiah, because this new child with
the "messsage name" fits the pattern of Isaiah having 2 other sons
with message names - Shear-jashub (7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz
(8:1-3).
Rather than fearing that this interpretation takes away from the
virgin birth, I think it makes it stronger. Matthew does not have to
invent a virgin birth to fit a supposed prophecy. When there actually
is a virgin birth he sees that it is kind of like what happened back
then, only Jesus is really "God with us".
Also, Mary knows nothing of such a prophecy. She thinks she can NOT
bear the Messiah because she is a virgin. The Magnificat is full of
Old Testament imagry, but Isaiah 7 is not part of it.
God likes to give signs of his power at work. Ahaz gets one. The
virgin birth of Jesus is another. JRW in OH
If this is to be a sign for King Ahaz, the birth must take place soon,
not 700 years in the future. Thus, the "modern" translations which use
"young woman' rather than "virgin" are much better, unless there is a
virgin birth back then, too. I don't think so!.
I think the young woman is Mrs. Isaiah, because this new child with
the "messsage name" fits the pattern of Isaiah having 2 other sons
with message names - Shear-jashub (7:3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz
(8:1-3).
Rather than fearing that this interpretation takes away from the
virgin birth, I think it makes it stronger. Matthew does not have to
invent a virgin birth to fit a supposed prophecy. When there actually
is a virgin birth he sees that it is kind of like what happened back
then, only Jesus is really "God with us".
Also, Mary knows nothing of such a prophecy. She thinks she can NOT
bear the Messiah because she is a virgin. The Magnificat is full of
Old Testament imagry, but Isaiah 7 is not part of it.
God likes to give signs of his power at work. Ahaz gets one. The
virgin birth of Jesus is another. JRW in OH
JRW in OH,
The commentery I've read suggests that the "young woman" here was
likely just a young woman who was at Ahaz's court, to whom Isaiah
could literally point a finger and say, "Look, she's pregnant. She's
going to have a son. And that birth is the sign that God is with us."
There's a local TV station here that ends its nightly newscasts with a
report of how many babies have been bron in the region today. Then
they say, "Life goes on. Goodnight, everyone."
Likewise, the birth of this child, who may or may not have been
something special, was a sign that even in the midst of the chaos and
destruction surrounding Jerusalem, God was still with them, life still
did go on. In a very real sense, that was (and is!) a miracle.
Heather in Sharon
I had a professor who used to say that the nice about God's word is
that it can fit more than one time. It is possible for the text to be
taken in the time it was written and also possible for it to be taken
again in a later time. Is it possible that this is what happens with
this text?
MR in NY
The funny thing about prophecies is that they work more than once.
Isaiah may have been speaking about a particular human child as a sign
for a particular historical moment, but he is also speaking about a
greater child as a sign for all history. There is fulfillment of the
prophecy during the time of Ahaz, but it is in the time of the
carpenter Joseph that it comes to its fullest fruition. The prophecy
is fulfilled twice. There is a child as a sign for Ahaz, and there is
a child as a sign for all humanity.
Rev. Steph in MD
Notice that verse 13 speaks, not just to Ahaz, but to the "house of
David." I have read that the "you" in v. 14 (the LORD himself will
give YOU a sign) is plural! So this sign is not just for Ahaz, but for
the whole house of David. To what extent is that "house of David" a
future thing?
JG in WI
Previous:
I am struggling with the question of how to address this scripture
with my adult SS class. I have to work from my own understanding,
which is that the original reference for Isaiah was to a child born in
his time, and in the near future. For him, the message is that in a
few years, both the kingdoms threatening Judah will be no longer a
problem. This is historically what came to pass.
And at the same time, I see the validity of Christians seeing this as
a Messianic prophecy. Some members of my class just can't see how both
things can be true. It's either/or. I can see how God led Isaiah to
prophesy more than even Isaiah could recognize.
How do you deal with the passage in the light of historical/critical
information, and the understanding that a prophet was generally
understood to be talking about events in his/her own time and place.
Indeed, the law says that prophets who prophesy falsely should be
stoned. How could they do this if the prophecy is for a time several
hundred years in the future?
Any help from you experienced people with such questions would help a
great deal.
ST
ST, Perhaps it's simplistic but i look at prophesy as an unfolding
process, rater like a bud opennng up. The truth is reveale in stages.
The fortelling of the birth of Hezekiah in this passage who was to
continue the line of David is no less true as a prophesy for the birth
of Jesus who continues the house of David for eternity. I can
understand how some of your members might find it confusing but there
is no real conflict in this passage. It is not a case of either/or but
both/and. I hope this was a little help. Pax et Bonum -Deke in Texas
Either/Or? Both/And? I think it a Both/And. A couple things come to
mind.
It seems to me that a primary point in the prophecy is that God was
with his people. That was true for Ahaz, but is a consistent part of
the nature of God. Thus, Jesus, as the ultimate expression of that
presence provides the final fulfillment of the prophecy (a statement
about God more than a foretelling of the future).
Second, what possessed Matthew to make this prophecy a statement about
Jesus? Can it be that the Holy Spirit had something to do with
Matthew's understanding of Isaiah? God was at work preserving his
people as the angel of death passed over Egypt. Yet that was a shadow
of the deeper truth to come, the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Another both/and. It is also certainly possible that as Jesus taught
his disciples where the scriptures referred to him included this
passage from Isaiah.
Chris in NY and PA
ST, God's word is eternal; it is for all time(s). The next question
for your class should probably be, "What does this prophesy say to us
in late 20th century America?" Should we be asking for signs from God?
What two nations do we fear today? Is Immanuel? (Is God with us?) In
the context of advent how long must we wait until all the enemies of
God's kingdom are no more? This text raises so many questions perhaps
the easy one is "Who is Isaiah refering to, Jesus or Hezekiah?" just
rumination FISHER in TN
I've also got a Bible Study working throught Isaiah. I've been struck
by the similarities to Revelation. Here is an idea I use in trying to
explain John's Revelation but I think it also applies to Isaiah's.
First, these prophets are seeing things from God's point of view which
is obviously not ours. That's why they are sometimes called "seers."
We see time as a line. This happens, then that and then something
else. One darn thing after another. I suspect that God's perspective
is more instantaneous. Turn that time-line so that it points right at
you, then everything happens at once. So, the prophets "see" current
events for them, right next to future events for them (which are past
events, for us) along with future events for us! And since God is also
the author of history and He really enjoys "forshadowing" events, the
events which prophets "see" next to each other are similar, or typical
events.
So, John sees the emperor Nero as the Anti-christ, but there are
others throughout history and will be one in the future which
epitomizes them all. Isaiah sees a child being born as a sign to his
king but also a child born as a sign for us all and the future rule of
that Child of God, all at once.
I don't know if I've explained myself very well but if you think it's
helpful, I'll try again.
Bro. Ken
ST, I see you're getting some help. A couple thoughts: There's been a
discussion of "myth" around DPS... you may not accept (or want to use)
that word, but part of the implication is that a text holds a more
complicated--even more powerful and eternal truth--when it is seen
beyond the one place and time "literal" sense. Yep, Isaiah seems to be
talking about a more present prophesy... and Jesus was called "Jesus",
not I/Emmanuel. Of course, Christ's "nature" (we might say) is
"Immanuel", now and always, "God with us." Christ's purpose, office,
vocation is in his Joseph (via angel) given name, "Jesus" (God saves).
You'll be getting into some good stuff about prophesy, I can see that!
I think, for this Sunday's sermon, I may look at the reality of
"signs" in our lives. Ahaz resisted and made excuses--but the sign
came. I can't remember--Oh, it was "City of Angels"--I can't remember
which character said it (at the moment) but one said "Some things are
true whether you believe them or not." Perhaps God's signs are like
that. We're getting them in our lives, but God's won't force our
appropriation of them. I'm afraid I'm goint to get cut off, so I'll
send this off. Advent blessings to all. Peter in CA
If this is direct prophecy, why does Mary say: How can this be, I am a
virgin? The Magnificat indicates many Old Testament themes, but hope
of a virgin birth is not one of them. The way Matthew uses the notion
of fulfilled prophecy is more like parallel rather than prediction,
i.e. Out of Egypt I have called my son, and the heard in Ramah. I
think Immanuel is the 3rd of Isaiah's sons with message-names - Shear-jashub
& Maher-shalal-hash-baz are the other 2. JRW
If this is direct prophecy, why does Mary say: How can this be, I am a
virgin? The Magnificat indicates many Old Testament themes, but hope
of a virgin birth is not one of them. The way Matthew uses the notion
of fulfilled prophecy is more like parallel rather than prediction,
i.e. Out of Egypt I have called my son, and the voice heard in Ramah.
I think Immanuel is the 3rd of Isaiah's sons with message-names -
Shear-jashub & Maher-shalal-hash-baz are the other 2. Sorry I left out
of word the first time. JRW
I see Ahaz as wanting to rely on his own ability to resolve an issue.
That way he can be in control, or think he is. This presumes the
response "I will not test the Lord" as an insincere protest, or hoping
to push off Isaiah and the Lord. Ahaz ignores the advice of Isaiah,
which is to let the threat fizzle while sitting tight and trusting in
God. (See 2 Kings 16:5-9)
This is a great passage - somewhere in Israel, there's a woman who
will give birth to a child and will call his name: Immanuel - I've
read that this is not a direct prophecy regarding the Messiah, but it
is a prophecy about a sign of faith that SOMEONE in Israel has, but
not the king. the king was checking out his military strategy - or his
water resources - by the aquaduct...
Likewise today, especially in light of the bombing of Iraq and the
votes of impeachment, etc., we need to look for signs of the reality
of Immanuel - God is with us. What signs do you see that God is with
us? What signs are you looking for that confirms in your heart and
with your faith the reality of Immanuel?
rick vanderwal fremont, MI
If there is any historical fulfillment to this passage it is virtually
impossible for the modern day reader to ascertain it. Walter Kaiser
suggests that Hezekiah prefigured the Messiah in this passage, but can
Hezekiah be called Immanuel? What virgin gave birth to him? There are
too many problems associated with trying to pinpoint people who may
have foreshadowed the Messiah here. What is clear is that the sign was
given to the house of David and not Ahaz. Thus Isaiah was giving "a
sign" that could occur at any time--another piece of the Messianic
puzzle if you will. Along with this the two kings (smoldering stubs)
were indeed very much laid waste by the time Jesus was born.
Therefore, as far as we know, Jesus is the only one in view here. As
far as the almah question is concerned. Should we not regard Matthew
as a better theologian than us?
