The Miserable Failure of Ahaz and God's Judgment On His House (Isaiah 7:10-17).
We must not underestimate this incident. In this total turnabout of history in Israel's most crucial time, for it would determine the whole of the future, the scion of the house of David rejects God's protection, and, uniquely, God's offer of a striking supernatural sign, and the result is that he and his descendants born from his seed are thereby debarred from being the future Davidic king. Because of Ahaz's shameful lack of response, the future expected king is not to be descended from his seed, but will be miraculously born.
Analysis of Isaiah 7:10-17.
a And Yahweh spoke again to Ahaz saying, “you may ask a sign of Yahweh your God. Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above” (Isaiah 7:10-11).
b But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test out Yahweh” (Isaiah 7:12).
c And he said, “Hear you now, O house of David, is it a small thing for you to weary men, that you will weary my God also?” (Isaiah 7:13).
c “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign, behold a virginal young woman will conceive and bear a son and will call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).
b “He will eat butter and honey when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, for before the child will know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you hate will be forsaken” (Isaiah 7:15-16).
a “Yahweh will bring on you, and on your people, and on your father's house, days that have not come from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah, even the King of Assyria” (Isaiah 7:17).
In ‘a' Ahaz is offered a sign, either in the depth or in the height above. In the parallel he is given a sign ‘in the depth', the invasion of Assyria. In ‘b' Ahaz in unbelief refuses the sign, and in the parallel receives a sign ‘in the height', of a (miraculous) child who will be born at a time of oppression and poverty. In ‘c' the house of David has wearied God, and in the parallel will be replaced by a miraculous child who will not be descended from Ahaz.
God Makes Ahaz An Astounding Offer (Isaiah 7:10-12).
‘And Yahweh spoke again to Ahaz saying, “you may ask a sign of Yahweh your God. Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.” But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test out Yahweh.'
God's backing of Ahaz if only he would believe was so assured that He graciously offered a sign of any magnitude so as to bolster Ahaz's flagging faith, simply because he was the son of David. Note that there was no limit to what he could ask. Here in one sense was the most favoured man in history. This demonstrates the crucial nature of what was involved. Clearly a remarkable, even incredible, miraculous sign was being offered (compare Isaiah 38:7-8). And yet Ahaz refused to ask for the sign. His reply was not as pious as it sounds. What he was effectively doing was dismissing Yahweh as an option. He was refusing the offer. For to take up the offer to ‘test out Yahweh', would be to bind him to Yahweh, and he did not wish to be bound. He was a man of no genuine faith.
‘Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.' The range offered was remarkably wide, going down into Sheol, or the depths of the sea, or rising up to the heavens among sun, moon and stars. God was willing for any required sign to be asked for, even something outside the sphere of living man's experience, something unusual, awesome and miraculous, greater even than those granted to Moses, Joshua (Joshua 3:5-8; Joshua 11:12-14) and Gideon (Judges 6:36-40). There was no limit. Thus Ahaz was left without excuse. His refusal was the direct result of his attitude as being anti-Yahweh. He was openly and directly rejecting obedience to the covenant. Rarely if ever has a man had such an offer and refused it. No wonder God was angry. Such a statement from God was clearly preparing the way for a genuinely awesome event, and that is precisely the kind of sign that Yahweh gives him, although not in the way originally intended. In view of what God had offered Ahaz, any sign He now gave had to be incredible and amazing. And so it was, ‘A virgin will bear a child.'
‘Of Yahweh YOUR God.' The ‘your' is emphatic. Contrast ‘my' in Isaiah 7:13.
The Offer Refused God Declares His Particular Judgment on Ahaz - The Coming King Will Now Not Be of His Seed But Will Be Miraculously Born (Isaiah 7:13-17).
In order to fully appreciate the words that follow we have to get into the electric atmosphere of the moment. Here God, quite understanding that, in the light both of the threat of the nations allied against him, and of the King of Assyria, Ahaz was afraid, had offered him any sign that he asked for, of whatever nature, however miraculous, a sign to surpass any that had ever been given before. Such a build up could only result in an outstanding miracle. Clearly any response by Yahweh must include such a sign, for this is what the whole narrative has been leading to. If Ahaz will not ask for a sign, then Yahweh will give him a sign of such proportions that it can never be doubted. But because God never seeks directly to convert unbelievers by miraculous signs it has to be in the form of a declaration about the future.
‘And he said, “Hear you now, O house of David, is it a small thing for you to weary men, that you will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign, behold a virginal young woman will conceive and bear a son and will call his name Immanuel.”
Isaiah replies forcefully to Ahaz's words, addressing him as the ‘house of David', the Davidic representative of that house. In the face of the promises to the Davidic house he is appalled at Ahaz's attitude. Here was a dreadful thing indeed. The anointed of Yahweh refusing the command of Yahweh in the face of the threats of the nations (contrast Psalms 2:1-2). He challenges the king on the basis that he has already wearied men by his behaviour, (Isaiah and those of the leadership who support him?), and that that is no small thing, although as a king he gets away with it for the time being. But he will surely recognise that he cannot treat God like this? That is going too far. In view of the fact that he has refused a remarkable sign God now has a remarkable sign for him. It will not, however, now be a favourable sign but a sign of his rejection. For that is the whole point behind these words. As he is wearying God by his prevarication in refusing to accept a remarkable sign, a remarkable sign will now be given to him but instead of being a sign of blessing it will be a sign of rejection.
The situation is very similar to that of Saul previously. The anointed of Yahweh had flouted the direct command of Yahweh and was therefore rejected and replaced in the mind of God long before he ceased to be king (1 Samuel 15:26; 1 Samuel 16:14), even though it would take time to work itself out before men (1 Samuel 31). In the case of Saul this was evidenced by the secret anointing of the young David before the actual physical transfer of power took place some time later (1 Samuel 16:13-14). But here it is to be evidenced by something even more startling, the promise of the unusual birth of a remarkable child. Again, although in secret, the transfer of power was taking place.
The use by Isaiah of ‘my God' is in itself suggesting the rejection of Ahaz by God. Isaiah now sees Ahaz as excluded from the right to see Yahweh as his God. By pointedly rejecting the use of ‘our God' Isaiah is excluding Ahaz from the company of those who can call Yahweh ‘my God', and thereby rejecting him as the Davidic representative.
For whether Ahaz likes it or not, Yahweh, the ‘sovereign Lord Himself', does intend to give him a sign. And that sign is of a virginal young woman who will bear a son and call his name Immanuel - ‘God with us'. What an impossible thing. A sign indeed ‘in the heights above'. And God's guarantee of it is a sign to Ahaz (for what God has said, He will do) that his own position is no longer tenable. In the future Ahaz can no longer anticipate the possibility that he or his blood descendants might be Immanuel, the ultra-successful coming king. For now when Immanuel comes he will not be from the house of Ahaz. He will be supernaturally born.
The word for young woman (‘almah) is never, as far as is known, used of a non-virgin or married woman. It refers to a young woman of marriageable age, with growing sexual desires, who is not yet married, and thus is assumed to be a virgin. The use of ‘almah in Song of Solomon 6:8-9 confirms this. There it is contrasted with queens and concubines and clearly describes those who are in the same situation as the loved one, unmarried and virginal, and in Isaiah 7:9 it is associated with ‘the daughters' of their mothers, (they have not yet left their own households), the many compared with the one. It is a word containing the idea of sexual purity, without the taint that had come on the word bethulah which was specifically linked with pagan deities of doubtful morality, and did not strictly mean a pure virgin at this time (compare Joel 1:8).
As this is intended to be a sign of unusual significance (‘in the depth, or in the height above' - Isaiah 7:10) it is clear that it is not just to be seen as an illustration in passing. We are probably to see Isaiah 7:14 as meaning ‘I will give you such a sign as I offered'. That is required by the context. To suggest that it is simply using an ordinary birth as a sign (say, of the prophet's wife or one of Ahaz's wives) is to go totally against the significance of the words and of the whole situation. A remarkable and unusual sign is required here. This is promising something so unusual as to constitute absolute evidence of God's direct intervention. At the very least it is saying that someone totally unexpected, who would not naturally be seen as a child-bearer, will have a child.
Nor can it have an illegitimate birth in mind, for that would not have been seen as either unusual or evidence of God's activity, and this especially as the child is to be called ‘God with us'. Rather than being a divine sign such a birth would have been seen as a matter for severe condemnation. (Only the modern day with its loose morality could turn such an idea into something glorious).
It is true that in Isaiah 8:3-4 the birth of a son to Isaiah's wife the prophetess is described, and he too is indicative of the length of time within which Syria and Israel will be spoiled by Assyria (Isaiah 8:4), but that is no unusual sign. It is simply a confirmation of the situation being described here. Births were commonplace, and there is no suggestion of anything unusual abut his birth, and the name given to the child is very different, with different implications (Maher-shalal-hash-baz - ‘haste the spoil, speed the prey') and not even suggestive of ‘God with us'. It can hardly be seen as a sign of the kind in mind from the sovereign Lord Himself.
Who then is this son? The context later tells us. In Isaiah 9:6 reference is made to an unusual child who is to be born, who is described as having the name ‘Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace'. This child is to establish the everlasting kingdom. That will be a sign indeed. The name Immanuel - ‘God with us' - thus fits well with him in every way. God is decidedly with him in what he is ‘named', and God will be with him in the establishing of the finally triumphant kingdom. Thus we are well justified in seeing this unusual and significant birth pronouncement as applying to him. Here truly is a worthy sign from the sovereign Lord.
This brings home the high expectations there were for the house of David at this time. The throne of its kingship was to be established for ever (2 Samuel 7:13; 2 Samuel 7:16), its representative was Yahweh's anointed (Psalms 2:2), Yahweh's begotten son (through adoption) (Psalms 2:7), whose final destiny was to rule and judge the nations to the uttermost parts of the earth (Psalms 2:8-9), so much so that he could be likened to God because he stands in the place of God and is appointed above all kings both great and small (Psalms 45:6-7). Thus he will one day be called Wonderful (compare Judges 13:18), Mighty God, Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6). His ascent to some kind of divinity is clear. Jesus certainly saw it in this way (Matthew 22:41-44). So there is no wonder that He should experience an unusual and divinely accomplished birth.
We can compare also the high expectation spoken of by Micah, ‘But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little among the thousands of Judah, out of you will one come forth to me who is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting' (Micah 5:2). There too we find the expectation of an extraordinary child.
What then is the significance of this sign to Ahaz? It is that when this great prince comes, in the imminent (but not necessarily immediate) future, he will not be born by descent from Ahaz, but will be wonderfully born without human father, closely associated with the house of David so as to be seen as the Davidic heir, but not of it, so as to escape the taint of Ahaz. It is a specific sign of Ahaz's rejection. Rather than Ahaz's seed inheriting the promises made to the Davidic house, another will arise to fulfil the promises made to David, replacing Ahaz and his seed, for God will ensure by a miracle that he will not be of Ahaz's seed. It is Ahaz's final humiliation, a sign that he has brought an unusual kind of rejection on the house of David. In him the house of David has so wearied God, that God will work a wonder so great that the coming Greater David will be of it and yet not of it. This would hit at the very root of Ahaz's pride in what he saw himself to be, the Davidic representative, and as such one who was uniquely exalted. Now he was being substantially downgraded and totally disinherited. The very divine right of the king was being overthrown.
This idea of One born from a virginal young woman would not be the problem to Isaiah and his hearers that it is to the modern day. They looked back and remembered that Isaac, the chosen son, had been born by God's miraculous intervention (Genesis 17:17-19; Genesis 21:1-2). They remembered that Manoah's wife had been barren and had had her womb made fruitful by God (Judges 13:3), thus producing the great deliverer Samson. They remembered that the mother of the great Samuel had also been unable to bear children (1 Samuel 1:5), and that she too had been miraculously touched by God (1 Samuel 1:19-20), and had thus borne that even greater deliverer. And all these births had been at vital times for God's people. So the thought that such a miraculous birth would occur in the future, even more miraculous than them, would demonstrate to them that the covenant God was still with them, working His wonders (for a similar use of the promise of a future event as a sign compare Exodus 3:12).
The name Immanuel (God with us) is also significant. The people of Judah saw the Davidic house as evidence that God was ‘with them'. Were not all His promises to be brought about through them? Thus God may well be saying here that the name Immanuel (God is with us) can no longer be applied to the house of David as represented in Ahaz, for God is no longer with them, but will uniquely now apply to the coming King. It is He who will be called Immanuel.
But it may be asked how such a future birth could be a sign to the house of Ahaz? The answer is that because of the nature of what the sign was declaring there was no necessity for the birth actually to be witnessed at that time. God was not now seeking to convert or comfort or reassure Ahaz by the sign. That opportunity had been refused. This was not an attempt to convince Ahaz. Rather by it God was declaring that by His own miraculous intervention He would disinherit Ahaz. His declaration of what He would do was therefore sufficient sign to Ahaz of what would be. It constituted the guarantee of a miraculous event some time in the future whose consequence would be the total disinheriting of Ahaz. Thus the guarantee of it happening was all the sign required. Ahaz was finished. He could now only wait with foreboding in his heart, knowing that his own fate was sealed, watching with fear the birth of every royal child. Outwardly he was still the son of David. But before God he was no longer accepted. It was a very similar situation to that of Saul and the secret anointing of David (1 Samuel 16).
This sign can be compared to the one given to Moses in Exodus 3:12. It was a sign from the future. It was the sign of a future event promised by Yahweh, which while not seen at the time would be a stay for the future. In Moses' case it was ‘you shall serve/worship God in this mountain'. A distant coming event was promised by Yahweh and was to give him the assurance that he needed, even before it happened, for it had happened in the mind of God, and he could believe. It was a sign to faith. Here similarly was a sign to faith. It was the sign of a future miraculous birth, which was a similar future sign, and could be accepted as a sign by faith because God had promised it.
It should be noted that while to us there is seen to be a considerable time lapse between these words and the coming of the King in Jesus, to both Ahaz, and even Isaiah, that birth was seen as ‘imminent', as ‘something that could happen at any time'. They had no way of knowing when it would be. Indeed Judah would constantly hope in the future for the birth of a special God-favoured king who would prove to be the coming triumphant one. None could know when it would be, nor possibly indeed would initially necessarily know when it had taken place. It was a promise of the future certain activity of God. And no royal mate would be involved. It was thus a date that could be either near or far, and the birth might be secret or open. All that Isaiah and Ahaz were shown was the fact that it would occur and what its significance would be. That was a sufficient sign to both of Ahaz's total rejection.
Thus the following description would also have immediate significance as a time indicator for both of them. The child might be born at any time, and yet they can be assured that before it was even possible for such a child to grow up the events described would have taken place. However it should be noted that that is not the stress of the sign. That is an after-result. The sign itself is rather focused on the rejection of Ahaz and on the fact that when the coming king was born he would now be miraculously disassociated from Ahaz.
Excursus on The Virgin Birth.
Here in Isaiah the promise is of an unmarried young woman of marriageable age (‘almah in Hebrew, parthenos in LXX) who will bear a child which will reveal to Israel that ‘God is with us', and will be a sign to Ahaz that God has rejected him and his house.
The Hebrew word used for young woman (‘almah) is never, as far as is known, used of a non-virgin or married woman. It refers to a young woman of marriageable age, with growing sexual desires, who is not yet married, and is thus assumed to be a virgin. The use of ‘almah in Song of Solomon 6:8-9 especially confirms this. There it is contrasted with queens and concubines and clearly describes those who are in the same situation as the loved one also being described, unmarried and virginal, and in Isaiah 7:9 is associated with ‘the daughters' of their mothers, (they have not yet left their own households), the many compared with the one. It is a word containing the idea of sexual purity, without the taint that had come on the word bethulah. Bethulah was specifically linked with pagan deities of doubtful morality at Ugarit, and could be used to describe fertility goddesses, who were certainly not virgins. It did not strictly mean a pure virgin at this time, whatever it came to mean later. Compare Joel 1:8 where a bethulah mourning the husband of her youth is described where there are no grounds at all for considering that they had only been betrothed.
Some have used Proverbs 30:19 as an example of ‘almah being used of a non-virgin, when it speaks of ‘the way of a man with a maid'. But there are no real grounds at all for suggesting that that indicates sexual activity. Indeed the opposite is more indicated. Using sexual movements as such an example, as something being watched by others, would with an innocent couple have been heavily frowned on. But we only have to look at what it is being compared with to recognise that it refers to no such thing. Rather it is being paralleled with flight and directional movement which is watched by others. The thought is thus more of a couple on the move in their flirtatious activity, or even of the man's behaviour of which the young woman is not so much aware, the observers being the amused onlookers as he trails her and tries to be noticed by her. It thus rather supports the use of ‘almah for an unmarried maiden than the opposite.
We can therefore understand why here the LXX translators translated ‘almah by the word ‘virgin' (parthenos), just as they did in Genesis 24:43. They recognised the emphasis that Isaiah was placing on this woman as being unmarried and pure.
It is true that the word ‘virgin' (parthenos) does not always refer to what is today indicated by the term virgin, an intact virgin who has not had relations with a man, but there is nevertheless always behind it the thought of underlying ‘purity'. The term could, for example, be applied to sacred prostitutes in Greek temples, who were by no means intact virgins. But these were seen as having their own kind of ‘purity' by those who wrote of them, for they were seen as daughters of the temples and of the gods, not as common prostitutes. They were ‘holy'. On the other hand, they were certainly not technically virgins. Furthermore after Dinah had been raped in Genesis 34:2 she was still called a parthenos in Isaiah 7:3 (LXX). She was seen as pure at heart even though she had been violated and was no longer an intact virgin. And in Isaiah 47 the ‘virgin daughter of Babylon' could lose her children and be brought to widowhood (Isaiah 47:1; Isaiah 47:9). In none of these cases then are parthenoi seen as intact virgins. On the other hand, the idea of purity might be seen as lying behind them all.
Nor did Hebrew at this time have a word for ‘intact virgin'. Virginity was assumed for all unmarried young women, unless there was reason to think otherwise, and then it was a shame to speak of it. The often cited ‘bethulah' did not indicate that at that time. Nor did it necessarily indicate purity. As we have seen above it was specifically linked with pagan deities of doubtful morality at Ugarit, and could be used to describe fertility goddesses, who were certainly not virgins, or even pure. They were far more lascivious and lustful than human beings. And in Joel 1:8 a bethulah mourning the husband of her youth is described. There are no grounds for thinking that she was a virgin. Indeed if she had had a husband for even one night she would not have been. Furthermore the word bethulah sometimes has to be accompanied by the words, ‘neither had any man known her' (Genesis 24:16; compare also Leviticus 21:3; Judges 11:39; Judges 21:12). That comparison would have been unnecessary if bethulah had specifically indicated a virgin. So a bethulah is a young woman, whether married or not, with no indication of her virginal state. An ‘alma is an unmarried young woman of marriageable age, who if pure (which she would be assumed to be) could in Israel be called a parthenos.
The next thing we note is that this unmarried and pure woman who is to bring forth a child is to be a sign to Ahaz of the rejection of him and his house (demonstrated by the coming of Assyria on them - Isaiah 7:17), and an indication that he will shortly see that God can do what He says and empty the lands of both his enemies, something which will also be a warning to him, for what can be done to them can be done to him in the same way.
Who then was this son who would act as a sign in this way? A number of suggestions have been made of which we will select the three most prominent.
1) It was a child to be born of the royal house, or of Isaiah's wife, whose very birth and weaning would act as a sign.
2) It was any child born at the time, the emphasis being on the fact that before it was weaned what God had said would happen.
3) It was the child described in Isaiah 9:6-7, the coming One Who would be greater than David, Who would be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and would rule over the whole world.
In order to decide which one was meant we must consider the context. In context God had offered to keep Ahaz safe under his protection, and in order to give him assurance in the face of what lay before him, had offered to give him a sign of miraculous proportions (an example of which we find later on when the sun goes back ten degrees under Hezekiah - Isaiah 38:5-8). God says, ‘Ask a sign of YHWH, whether it be as high as Heaven or as deep as Sheol' (Isaiah 7:11). This was an offer which Ahaz suavely rejected, because he preferred to look to the King of Assyria. But this sign once given would have been the sign that Ahaz would be ‘established'. It was thus related not only to the deliverance from the current problem, but also to the guaranteeing of the future establishment of the house of David through the line of Ahaz, protecting him from all comers.
And it is on his refusal to respond to God's offer that God says that He will nevertheless give him a sign, but that this time it will be a sign, not of God's help and protection, but of the king of Assyria coming on him, (thus he will not be established). And the sign will be that a child will be born of an ‘almah.
The first thing that must be said about this is that it suggests that God intends to bring before him a sign that will indeed be one of miraculous proportions, ‘as high as Heaven or as deep as Sheol', in accordance with what He has previously described, even though it is one which will not be of benefit to him at all. For only such a sign could demonstrate the certainty that the future of the house of Ahaz was no longer ensured. And if that was to be so then only a virgin birth would fit the bill. It was the virgin birth of the Coming One that guaranteed that He would not be of Ahaz' house, and that instead God Himself would have stepped in.
1) The suggestion that it refers to a child to be born of the royal house, or of Isaiah's wife, whose very birth would act as a sign.
The birth of a son to the royal house in the normal course of events (Hezekiah had already been born) or to the prophetess could hardly have been such a sign as the Lord has described above. For one thing no one would have believed that the child was born of a virgin. And indeed it was not possible to the prophetess who was no longer a virgin. The prophetess bears two sons, both of whom by their names will be signs to Judah/Israel, as would their father (Isaiah 8:18), but note that while the prophetess was mentioned earlier in respect of one of the sons (Isaiah 8:3), she is not mentioned in Isaiah 7:18 where we have the mention of ‘signs and portents' referring to both sons and their father. There is therefore no emphasis on it being the prophetess who bears both sons who were ‘signs and portents in Israel' (along with their father) even though she had in fact done so. The emphasis here is on the father.
However, the argument is often that that is the point. The emphasis is in fact on her bearing one of the sons, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isaiah 8:3), who will be a sign of the devastation of the two kings, something which in Isaiah 7:16 was to be gathered from the sign of the ‘almah with child. But here we should note that in Isaiah 8:3 it is not in fact specifically described as a sign. It is rather seen as a prophetic acting out of what is to be, which is not quite the same thing. Of course we may accept that it was an indication of what is to be, and in that sense a sign. But it is equally certainly not the kind of sign that the Lord had originally spoken of, a sign of startling proportions. Nor is it said to relate to the now greater matters that were involved, that Ahaz's house would no longer be established, and that the king of Assyria was about to descend on him and his land because he had forfeited the Lord's protection.
We may therefore justifiably see the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz as a partial sign, but not as a great and wonderful sign. The child's birth, through the name given to him, was indeed a sign that the kings would be destroyed from their lands within a short while, but that was all that he is described as being. But he was not born of an ‘almah, and he is not said to be a sign of the larger matter in hand, the rejection of the house of Ahaz as manifested by the coming of Assyria and devastation of Judah. Nor is he said to be the sign of the coming of a king who would achieve what Ahaz has failed to achieve (Isaiah 9:7), that is, of the fulfilment of the promises to the house of David. (A fact that will later be made even clearer by the rejection of his son Hezekiah and his seed - Isaiah 39:5-7). The same problems as these lie with any attempt to relate the birth of the child to the birth of any child in the house of Ahaz. The birth of such a child would hardly rank as an unusual sign, and would be even less significant than that born to the prophetess. The heir, Hezekiah, was already born.
2) The suggestion that it refers to any child born at the time the emphasis being on the fact that before it was weaned what God had said would happen.
This suffers from even more disadvantages than the first, for it does not even have the partial support in context that the first interpretation has when related to the prophetess. It is fine as an evidence of how short a time it will be before both of Ahaz's opponents are devastated, but it has nothing to say about the non-establishment of the house of Ahaz or of the coming of the king of Assyria, nor could it possibly be seen as in any way parallel with the kind of sign that the Lord had spoken about. For the truth is that if the Lord made His great declaration about ‘a sign almost as beyond the conception of man as it could possibly be', and then gave one which was merely a birth in the usual run of things, it would appear to all that all that He had offered was a damp squib.
And this is especially so because in the past He had specialised in special births in that a number of past ‘greats' had been born miraculously (even though not from an ‘almah), and almost with the same words. Thus Isaac was born ‘miraculously' (Genesis 18:10-11; Genesis 18:14; Genesis 21:2 - ‘conceived and bore a son'), Samson was born ‘miraculously' (Judges 13:3 - ‘will conceive and bear a son'), Samuel was born ‘miraculously' (1 Samuel 1:5; 1 Samuel 1:20 - ‘conceived and bore a son'). And all these births would be engraved on Israelite hearts. But there is no suggestion that they were born of ‘almah's, nor was the child of the prophetess in fact born ‘miraculously', even though she ‘conceived and bore a son'. Indeed she had already previously had another son. It will be noted that the only exact parallel to ‘ will conceive and bear a son' in the whole of the Old Testament is Judges 13:3; Judges 13:5; Judges 13:7, and that of a birth that was certainly to be unusual and unexpected, and of one who was to be saviour of his people. Thus these words would raise in the minds of the hearers the expectancy of some quite remarkable birth.
3) The suggestion that it refers to the child described in Isaiah 9:6-7, the coming One Who would be greater than David, Who would be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, and would rule over the whole world, thus indicating that He would be miraculously born of an ‘almah (parthenos, virgin).
There can be no question that this suggestion of the virgin birth of the coming hope of the house of David has the most going for it from an Israelite's point of view and from the point of view of the context. It would tie in with the past history of conceiving and bearing a ‘miraculous child' as being signs to Israel. It would tie in with the Lord's promise that He would give a remarkable miraculous sign. It would tie in with the following description of the ‘birth of a child' in Isaiah 9:6. It would give full weight to the use of ‘almah. It would explain why it demonstrated that ‘God is with us'. It would confirm that the hope of the house of David was indeed coming, in spite of present appearances, even though Ahaz' house would be excluded.
And as no one knew when the child would be born (it could be at any time) the indication that both kings would be devastated before the child could possibly grow to boyhood was a sufficient indicator of time, especially when associated with the actual example of the birth of the son to the prophetess. Indeed the only question that it might raise is, how could such a birth in the future possibly be a sign to Ahaz?
The answer to this question lies in the nature of the sign. It should be noted that this was no longer intended to be a sign to Ahaz that he was to be established (Isaiah 7:9). But what it certainly was, was a sign of the fact that he would not be established, and while that did not really require a great present miracle at the time then current, God was determined to give him a miraculous sign which would demonstrate the fact in an inescapable way. He lived at a time when all hopes were on the coming of the future triumphant son of David, who would be of the line of David, and who would rule the world. And Ahaz would pride himself in the fact that it would be of his seed. Thus to inform Ahaz that he was now receiving a miraculous sign in the statement by God that ‘the coming David' would now in fact be born of a virgin, and not be of his seed, was indeed a sign that he would not be established, and was an unwelcome sign indeed. It was an indication that the future throne would go to one not born of Ahaz's seed. The sign was thus now not a matter of when the child would be born, but of what his birth would signify as regards the hopes for the future. Furthermore we have a good example in the past of precisely such an idea of a sign that was given as a sign to its recipient, with the actual working out of the sign being a future event. For such an example see Exodus 3:12. There the sign that Moses had been sent would be the fact that the people to whom he went would one day ‘serve God on this mountain'. The sign was a promise of a better future that had to be believed in, and that they could hold on to, and in which they had to continue to believe. It was a sign of a future which would actually be the result of their response of faith, just as this sign in Isaiah 7:14 is a similar promise of a better future in which the people are called on to believe, even if Ahaz will not (Isaiah 7:9).
Strictly speaking in fact Ahaz did not want or merit a sign. He had refused it. He had already made up his mind to look to Assyria. Thus the point here is that he was receiving a spoken sign that he did not want, a sign indicating God's decree, which demonstrated the very opposite of what the original promised sign would have indicated. It demonstrated his rejection by God. Meanwhile Israel could indeed be confident that one day it would receive its promised king Whose coming would prove that God was with them, but they would now know that He would not be born of the seed of Ahaz, but would rather be born of a virgin. We should also note that while this might cause problems to our scientific age, it would have caused no problems to Israelites. They would not be looking for some interpretation that avoided the ‘miraculous'. They would have seen no difficulty in the Creator bringing about a virgin birth. That is a modern problem.
End of Excursus.
‘He will eat butter and honey when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, for before the child will know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you hate will be forsaken. Yahweh will bring on you, and on your people, and on your father's house, days that have not come from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah, even the King of Assyria.'
To ‘eat butter (or curds, thick sour milk) and wild honey' has been interpreted as meaning either a time of plenty, the food of the gods, or a time when it was necessary to exist on basic things because the land itself was unfruitful. Isaiah 7:22, however, read in context makes clear that the reference is to the latter. So the coming miracle child will not be born in a time of plenty. His birth will come while the land is under judgment, and He will have to exist on basic foods. The idea of his coming is thus a sign of the hard times ahead. Meanwhile Ahaz can be sure, as God has promised, and will not now renege on, that before there could be time for such a child to grow to maturity the doom of Syria and Israel will have been sealed. But let him not gloat on that fact, for he himself also will in fact find himself no more an independent king but merely a vassal prince, subject to heavy tribute. In contrast to what he could have had from the Lord Yahweh, independence, glory and prestige, the one to whom he has actually chosen to look will demote him to being a mere vassal, a mere servant prince. He will reap what he has sown.
‘When he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good.' This can mean either when the child is of an age to appreciate the world and make right decisions (2 Samuel 19:35), or when he comes to moral discernment (Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:5; Genesis 3:22 see Genesis 50:20; Deuteronomy 1:39; Deuteronomy 30:15). The phrase is used with both meanings, which timewise roughly tie in with each other.
‘The land whose two kings you hate will be forsaken.' The lands of Syria and Israel will be deserted, the kings will be no more. Possibly it includes the idea that they will also prove to have been forsaken by their gods in whom they trusted.
‘Yahweh will bring on you, and on your people, and on your father's house, days that have not come from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah, even the King of Assyria.' Ahaz has chosen the king of Assyria in preference to Yahweh, and so the king of Assyria he shall have, at Yahweh's hand. Both Ahaz and his people will become subject to them, but worse, the proud, exalted Davidic house, for which God had promised so much, would also be subjected. The house ‘destined to rule the world' would be the puppet of Assyria. With the faithlessness of Ahaz all the dreams for the house of David had collapsed.
‘From the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.' Ever since the death of Solomon the kings had been independent. Now it will be so no longer. From now on they will always be subject to another earthly overlord, until the son is born in hard times who is destined to rule the world (Isaiah 9:6-7).
Note.
Reference will be made in chapter 8 to the birth of a son to the wife of Isaiah. But he is specifically named Maher-shalal-hash-baz (‘haste the spoil, speed the prey') to indicate the coming judgments of God, and the downfall of Syria and Israel and the desolation of Judah. Nothing could be more in contrast with this promise in Isaiah 7:14. The child of Isaiah 7:14 is a child of hope. The prophetess's child is a child of judgment. Nor was Isaiah's wife at the time an ‘almah. While therefore it may have been left open to some to see that child as fulfilling the prophecy, if they wished to do so, the child did not really do so. He was named rather in confirmation of the coming judgment already placarded (Isaiah 8:1-2). He was not ‘Immanuel', God is with us. Nor was his birth such a remarkable sign as to prove anything. Something greater had certainly to be looked for in order to fulfil Isaiah 7:14, as the continuing emphasis on Immanuel makes clear (Isaiah 8:8; Isaiah 8:10; Isaiah 9:6).
End of note.