"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14
This is probably one of the most quoted and least understood OT passages in the entire Bible. It is one of the most quoted passages because Matthew applies it to the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:23. It is one of the least understood passages because most of us don't take the time to understand this wonderful prophecy about the birth of our Lord in its original context.
The historical context of this prophecy is the 8th century BC during the reign of the wicked King Ahaz in Judah. Both Kings and Chronicles give us some insight into the dispicable character of this King. According to 2 Kings 16:3, Ahaz burned his child alive to the Canaanite deity Molech! He also corrupted temple worship in Jerusalem by replacing the broze altar with a Syrian model he saw while delivering tribute to the king of Assyria in Damascus. Ahaz reigned during a period of rising Assyrian power. The Assyrians were a brutal and powerful empire that terrorized the Ancient Near East until they were defeated by the Neo-Babylonian empire during the late 7th century BC. So cruel were the Assyrians in their military tactics that people would often commit suicide in advance rather than to face torture. In response to the Assyrian threat, king Pekah of Israel (Ephraim) and king Rezin of Syria, two bitter enemies, made an unlikely military alliance against king Tiglath-Pilesar III of Assyria around 735 BC. These two kings marched against king Ahaz of Judah in an attempt to intimidate him into joining their alliance or to replace him with a puppet king who would support their military ambitions. With Jerusalem under siege and having suffered severe losses in the conflict (cf. 2 Chronicles 28:6), Isaiah tells us that "the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind" (Is 7:2). The name given to this significant military event by modern day historians is the 'Syro-Ephraimite war'.
It was into this desperate situation in Judah that God sent His servant Isaiah to deliver the Emmanuel prophecy. 'Emmanuel' literally means "God is with us" and it refers to a prophetic sign given by the Lord to Ahaz and the people of Judah through the prophet Isaiah. The Emmanuel prophecy in its original context was not messianic, but referred to a sign given to Ahaz and Judah in the face of certain military defeat, reassuring them of YHWH's presence in spite of their wickedness and rebellion. The Emmanuel prophecy therefore speaks of God's patience and grace! Before bringing terrible judgment on the people of Judah for their rebellion and disobedience to the covenant, God is giving them an opportunity to repent! So who exactly was Emmanuel in historical context? The answer is found in Isaiah 8:3:
"And I (Isaiah) went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; for before the boy knows how to cry 'My father' or 'My mother' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."
Emmanuel is none other than Isaiah's own son! This interpretation is confirmed by Isaiah's commentary in 8:18: "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from teh LORD of hosts." In its original context the "virgin" or "young woman" is Isaiah's wife who gave birth to Maher-shalal-hash-baz during the siege of Jerusalem. The birth of this child was a sign to Ahaz that God was still willing to deliver the people of Judah. This newborn child was a token of His ongoing presence with a rebellious and disobedient people, although the name of the child (literally - "the spoil speeds, the prey hastens") was intended to remind the people that divine judgment was indeed coming and did in fact come in 586 BC when Jerusalem fell to Babylon.
So how did Ahaz respond to this sign?? The sad truth is that he rejected it. Instead of trusting in God for protection, Ahaz ignored Isaiah and sent envoys to Tiglath-Pilesar III of Assyria asking for his help. Assyria did intervene on behalf of Judah, destroying the Syro-Ephraimite alliance and sending the northern kingdom into captivity, but at an incredibly high price. Within a generation, the Assyrians had overrun Palestine and were beseiging Jerusalem once again and brutally destroying other cities in Judah. The people rejected God's sign and God's judgment fell - although God once again demonstrated his mercy and grace to King Hezekiah by miraculously delaying the destruction of Jerusalem.
Fast forward to the manger in Bethlehem 700 years later and we find a new token of God's grace in the midst of despair. The baby Jesus, Matthew tells us under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is Emmanuel - God with us! What wonderful news this must have been to the Jewish people who were familiar with their own history. The God of infinite grace and patience was once again reassuring His people of his ongoing presence and covenant fidelity - this time by sending his own Son to be born of a virgin. The fact that Jesus is our "Emmanuel" brings with it a message of hope and a message of judgement. In sending Jesus, God has chosen to delay the great day of judgement in order to give all people an opportunity to repent and believe the gospel. Every day that passes is a day of God's grace where the gospel invitation is extended to sinners: "Come unto me all ye who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest!" But just as terrible judgment came to Judah for their rejection of the Lord, so another terrible day of judgment is coming for all those who reject "Emmanuel". So let us who know Emmanuel rejoice this Christmas because we will enjoy His presence forever! But let us never forget that a day of terrible judgement is coming for all those who reject God's Messiah. Emmanuel will very soon return as a conquering King to destroy all of his enemies and to consummate His reign and rule over all things. The sign of Emmanuel should fill our hearts not merely with joy, but with a great sense of urgency for those who continue to reject Him. Let us therefore make the most of every opportunity this holiday season to share the "glad tidings of good news" with friends and family who do not yet know Emmanuel.
Hey,
ReplyDeleteTo start, let me ask a question that's tangent to your post: Do you think that English OTs should put YHWH in as the translation of the tetragrammaton, or are you good with "LORD"?
To your post: Do you find the sign that Isaiah gives weird? The immediate layer of the prophecy (i.e., the non-messianic aspect of the prophecy) says that Isaiah will have a kid. Somehow, that doesn't seem like too big an achievement to me. My father once warned me, "It's very easy to have a kid, but it's very tough to raise one."
Do you know what I mean?
In seminary was there ever a discussion of predictive prophecy and the odds of Jesus fulfilling OT prophecy? I think Isaiah 52-53 and Micah 5: 2 are examples where Jesus fulfilled predictive prophecy, but other OT passages where Jesus typologically fulfilled them (e.g., Hosea 11: 1, or this passage you're discussing), I think we shouldn't be using in our calculations of the odds of Jesus fulfilling prophecy.
Do you know of a study that's been done of the odds of any man fulfilling OT predictive prophecy using a reformed understanding of fulfillment in the NT?
Hey Peter... as for your question, I'm fine either way as long as pastors explain the significance of LORD so that people know that its a reference to the divine name. I actually like "LORD", because the NT authors applied the title (adonai --> kurios) to Jesus with clear implications for His deity. These passages can be a powerful polemic against Jehovah's Witnesses and other heretical sects.
ReplyDeleteFor your second question, I do find the sign to be a little bit weird... but then again Isaiah also went around naked and barefoot for three years as a sign! I think the names of Isaiah and his children are the most significant part of these signs. If you take these three names together, you basically get the three main themes of the book - salvation, judgment, restoration. Of course, the sign takes on more significance in the flow of redemptive history as it is later applied to Jesus, and the Hebrew word "virgin" is translated "parthenos" in the LXX - an interesting choice indeed!
Your question about messianic prophecy is more complicated. I actually had a semester long class with Dr. Willem VanGemeren who has influenced my thinking on this subject, although I'm not willing to go as far as him. VanGemeren argues that there is very rarely (if ever) a one-to-one prophecy-fulfillment with respect to Jesus of Nazareth in the OT. His point is that too often we Evangelicals apply the OT to Jesus this way without taking time to see how the interpretation of Scripture has unfolded progressively as more revelation was added to the canon. Many so-called "messianic" passages in the OT refer in the first instance to the Davidic lineage. These passages raise "messianic expectations" but they don't always apply directly to Jesus in the first instance. VanGemeren likes to say that Jesus' life was "in accordance" with OT prophecy rather than "in fulfillment" of OT prophecy because this kind of terminology emphasizes that there are often multiple fulfillments of any given prophecy as redemptive history unfolds. VanGemeren also liked to say that prophecy often leaves us with a "surplus of expectation". Isaiah 9 is a good example of this where the child described in the text most likely refers historically to King Hezekiah, but the characteristics of this king (ie. everlasting Father, mighty God) go beyond the description of a human king. We therefore are justified in applying this passage typologically to Jesus Christ. Even Isaiah 52-53 might not refer to Jesus directly - the suffering servant might very well be a reference to Isaiah or the nation of Israel in the first instance which is then applied typologically to Jesus by NT authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Clearly the language of vicarious suffering in this passage leaves us with a "surplus of expectation" which was ultimately fulfilled when Messiah suffered and died on the cross for sinners. I agree with you though that the Bethlehem passage in Micah is an example of direct predictive prophecy (although it is conceivable that there is some kind of historical situation underlying this passage that we don't know about!). So in answer to your question - I tend to follow Reformed hermeneutics in the way I interpret the OT and lean heavily toward typology. I think this kind of interpretation will also help our Jewish friends to take us more seriously when we discuss some of the "messianic" passages in the OT.