A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 7: A Virgin Shall Conceive

A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 7: A Virgin Shall Conceive

Thus far in Isaiah we have seen three recorded visions, first in chapter 1 where there was a general condemnation of Israel, then in chapters 2 through 5 where there was another condemnation of Israel, and a lengthier condemnation concerning Judah, and finally, in chapter 6, there was another vision in which it was proclaimed that the people would be blind, and deaf, ostensibly so that the Will of Yahweh described in the prophecies which concerned them would be fulfilled. That is how Isaiah understood it, where in verse 11 he described himself as having responded to the vision by asking “How long, Lord?” and the answer he received was: “Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, 12 And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.”

So Judah is condemned, the cities of Judah were destined to become wasted and without inhabitant, and at this time there had not been any contingencies provided by which Judah may escape such a fate. Therefore, as we proceed throughout Isaiah from this point, we must keep in consideration the fact that these judgments would indeed be executed in spite of any other promises of deliverance, or a promised appearance of a beneficent ruler, or even of a savior or messiah figure, things which we shall see here in the next several chapters. In that it becomes evident that such promises may have some partial near-term fulfillment, but ancient Judah was not going to be saved, and therefore the promises must indicate something else, something with a long-term fulfillment, a fulfillment far off in the future. This is a phenomenon of many prophecies, that they have a dual nature, which we label as the near vision and the far vision.

Now before we discuss Isaiah chapter 7, we should recall that in an appendix to our recent Genesis commentary, and in the opening chapter of our commentary on Isaiah, we spoke of some of the problems with rectifying the chronology of the kings of Judah, and that may start to become apparent here. Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he ruled in Judah for sixteen years, according to 2 Kings chapter 16 (16:2) and 2 Chronicles chapter 28 (28:1). In 2 Kings chapter 17 (17:1) it states that in the twelfth year of king Ahaz, Hoshea became the king of Israel. So Ahaz is likely to have died some time in Hoshea’s fourth year as king of Israel.

After Hezekiah the son of Ahaz became king in his place, in 2 Kings chapter 18 we read “ 9 And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it.” This is roughly consistent, since Hoshea would have become king while Ahaz still lived for about four years, and then some time after Hezekiah had been king for three years, in Hezekiah’s fourth year Hoshea would have been in his seventh year. At the time he became king, Hezekiah was twenty-five years old, so he was at least eight or perhaps nine years old when his father Ahaz became king. This is found in 2 Chronicles chapter 29: “1 Hezekiah began to reign when he was five and twenty years old, and he reigned nine and twenty years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Abijah, the daughter of Zechariah.” Even this presents a problem, since if Hezekiah was 9 when his father became king at the age of twenty, then Ahaz was only eleven years old when Hezekiah was born, and only ten years old when he had begotten him.

So Hezekiah would have become king of Judah around 727 BC, for 721 BC to have been his sixth year. That is the year in which the Assyrian siege of Samaria had most likely begun, according to the popular chronologies. Then in Isaiah chapter 36 we read: “1 Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them.” However according to the long-standing and popular academic chronologies of Assyrian history, Samaria was besieged in 723 BC, the seventh year of Hoshea, and fell in his ninth year in 721 BC., whereas the campaign of Sennacherib in Judah, his taking of forty-six fenced cities, and his failed siege of Jerusalem, did not end until 701 BC. So there are about twenty years between the two events according to the Assyrian historians and archaeologists, but these passages in Scripture allow for only about eight years, in the manner in which they read today. Samaria must have fallen in Hezekiah’s sixth year if the siege began in his fourth, and that is confirmed in 2 Kings chapter 18 (18:10) where we read “10 And at the end of three years they took it: even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken.” So if the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem began in his fourteenth year, that leaves eight years between end of the siege of Samaria and the siege of Jerusalem, where the historians require twenty years, from their popular dates of 721 and 701 BC.

As we had said in our Genesis commentary in relation to Egyptian chronology, we would rather gauge chronology by Scripture rather than through archaeology, however in this case the Scripture has as many problems as the chronologies of the archaeologists. Perhaps we need to start from scratch, collect all of the discernible facts, and attempt to collate them anew. That we may one day attempt to do, however many before us have undertaken that same endeavor, and they have always been frustrated. But as we had also explained in Part 1 of this commentary, there is a ten-year anomaly in the chronology of the reigns of the kings of Israel, and among some of the possibilities we wrote that “The only other possibility is that the accepted timeline of Assyrian history is wrong, and Samaria was not destroyed until 711 BC, rather than 721.” If Hezekiah came to the throne in 717 BC, rather than 727, and if Samaria was destroyed in 711, and the siege of Jerusalem began eight years later in 703 or 702, then some of these difficulties begin to evaporate, but that leaves other difficulties which are apparent in the Assyrian records, so the problems are not that easily rectified.

In an archaeological relic known as the Oriental Institute Prism of Sennacherib there is an account which was also preserved in another inscription discovered on a relic called the the Taylor Prism, where the siege of Jerusalem was recorded as having taken place in the third military campaign of Sennacherib, who is said to have begun to rule Assyria in 704 BC. It is those inscriptions where the taking of forty-six fenced cities of Judah is found, as well as the failed siege of Jerusalem, the account of which Sennacherib had spun to his own advantage. [1] We shall withhold a fuller citation from the inscription for the relevant chapters later in the book of Isaiah.

At the beginning of the relatively short vision which is recorded in Isaiah chapter 6, the prophet had explained that it was received in the year that Uzziah king of Judah had died, which by the popular accounts is around 740 BC. His son Jotham was said to have ruled Judah for sixteen years, and after him, his son Ahaz for another sixteen years. But now here in chapter 7, while Isaiah has not indicated precisely how much time has elapsed since his last vision, Ahaz is already king, so Jotham must have already died. This seems to accord with our proposal that much of the time of Jotham’s sixteen years may have been in co-regency with his father Uzziah. However that proposal falls apart with 2 Kings chapter 15 where we read: “27 In the two and fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned twenty years.” If Ahaz became king in the seventeenth year of Pekah, which is stated in 2 Kings chapter 16, and if Pekah’s rule began in the year in which Uzziah had died, then in the interim Jotham was king by himself for sixteen years after the death of Uzziah and during those first seventeen years of the rule of Pekah – unless Ahaz also had a co-regency with Jotham, which is possible but which is not as likely because it is never mentioned.

So now as Isaiah chapter 7 opens, Isaiah mentions Pekah the king of Israel. Pekah was said to have been king for 20 years until the time of Hoshea. This must be near the end of his reign, since we read in 2 Kings chapter 16 that “1 In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.” So now Pekah would have less than three years left, and where Isaiah says here that “it came to pass in the days of Ahaz” we are still no more than two years and some months into the days of Ahaz, because Pekah is still king of Israel. So the event described here very likely took place in the third year of Ahaz, where we read in Isaiah 7:1:

1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.

Even if it is the third year of the rule of Ahaz, both Rezin and Pekah were hostile to Judah in the days of Jotham. This is recorded in 2 Kings chapter 15: “32 In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel began Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign. 33 Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok. 34 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD: he did according to all that his father Uzziah had done. 35 Howbeit the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burned incense still in the high places. He built the higher gate of the house of the LORD. 36 Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? 37 In those days [the days of Jotham] the LORD began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah. 38 And Jotham slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead.”

Perhaps while enmity existed between Rezin and Jotham, and Pekah and Jotham, the two had not yet united in their efforts against Judah, as we now read here in Isaiah:

2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.

The pronoun his must refer to Ahaz, the subject of the preceding verse. In 2 Kings chapter 16, the second mention of Rezin king of Syria in Scripture, we read: “2 Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD his God, like David his father. 3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel. 4 And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree. 5 Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. 6 At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the [Judahites] from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.”

Where this same event is recorded in 2 Chronicles chapter 28, there is much more to the account, where it explains that on account of the sins of Ahaz, “5 Wherefore the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter. 6 For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men; because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers. 7 And Zichri, a mighty man of Ephraim, slew Maaseiah the king's son, and Azrikam the governor of the house, and Elkanah that was next to the king. 8 And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to Samaria.” Later in that chapter, it is described that certain notable men of Ephraim protested the taking of captives from Judah, and they were returned, but there is no mention of a return of the captives which had been brought to Damascus.

However it did not end there for Ahaz. As 2 Chronicles chapter 28 continues, it describes Ahaz as having sent to Tiglath-Pileser the king of Assyria for assistance, where in the meantime both Edomites and Philistines had invaded various portions of Judah from which the Edomites had taken hostages, and the Philistines territory. Then we read: “19 For the LORD brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel; for he made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the LORD. 20 And Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not. 21 For Ahaz took away a portion out of the house of the LORD, and out of the house of the king, and of the princes, and gave it unto the king of Assyria: but he helped him not.” While it is not mentioned explicitly, it was a sin for Ahaz to send to a pagan king for help, rather than turning to Yahweh his God.

But in spite of his sins, what happens next here in Isaiah must have come as a result of these events, and the conspiracy against Judah on the part of Rezin and Pekah:

3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

At this point, it seems that the prophet Isaiah had not had a vision for nearly twenty years, since the death of Uzziah and his vision in chapter 6. Since this is about the third year of Ahaz, who became king in the seventeenth year of Pekah king of Israel, it must be nearly twenty years since Isaiah’s last vision. That does not mean that Isaiah was quiet during that period, because he must have been announcing his earlier visions to the people.

As we discussed in the opening part of this commentary, here it is revealed that the prophet Isaiah had a son, Shearjashub. The name שׁאר ישׁוב or shar iashub (# 7610) is a phrase which is defined in Strong’s original Concordance to mean “a remnant will return”, which is certainly prophetic, and which must refer to the same remnant which had just been described in the final verse of Isaiah chapter 6, which we had translated to read: “13 Yet a tenth shall return and shall be kindled; like a tree, even like an oak, in order that with its felling is a monument, through which the Holy Seed shall be a monument.” So just as the prophet Hosea, the prophet Isaiah had also had children who had been given names that were ominously foreboding in the circumstances of their times. While here it is only mentioned that he had one son, a little further on in Isaiah chapter 8 he will have another son, and he will also be named in that same manner.

Now Isaiah is instructed as to what he should say to Ahaz, however Ahaz must have been familiar with Isaiah’s earlier prophecies concerning Judah, and therefore his having brought a son along with him whose name is “a remnant will return” is in itself a rather strong an underlying message which must have reminded Ahaz of those earlier prophecies. Yet in the instructions he is given here, there is still a message of hope:

4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

After the reference to firebrands, the Septuagint has the last clause of the verse to say “ for when my fierce anger is over, I will heal again”, without making any reference to the opposing kings. In verse 5 which follows, the Septuagint begins the verse to read “And as for the son of Aram, and the son of Romelias…” where in the King James Version we see Syria, which is Aram, and Ephraim and the son of Remaliah. In both cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls supports the reading of the Masoretic Text found in the King James Version.

5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, 6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:

As we have seen in 2 Chronicles chapter 28, certain men of Ephraim must have come very close to being in a position to usurp Ahaz, as it is recorded that they “slew Maaseiah the king's son, and Azrikam the governor of the house, and Elkanah that was next to the king.” So it is plausible, as we learn here, that they were indeed trying to overthrow Ahaz and replace him with one of their own men. But this Tabeal is otherwise unknown. His name טבאל or Tobel means “God is good”. Evidently the kings of Syria and Israel wanted to set his son in place of Ahaz on the throne of Judah, but he is not mentioned again in Scripture, at least in these terms, so we shall not offer any conjecture concerning his identity. In any event, Yahweh rejected their plans, as Isaiah next informs Ahaz:

7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. 8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. 9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

The Septuagint ends verse 9 with the words “but if ye believe not, neither will ye at all understand.” The Hebrew word אמן or amen (# 539) may mean establish, as it is translated here, or also to support or confirm, but also to be faithful or reliable, among other things. It is the same word which supplies the word amen which is found frequently in the Greek New Testament and in its English translations, where it is used as a sort of exclamation expressing avowal or approval. So the Septuagint translation of the word seems to be a viable interpretation, in the context in which it is used here.

Strong’s Concordance relates the name of the king of Aram here, רצין or Rezin (# 7526), to a similarly spelled Hebrew word (# 7522) which means delight and which is in turn related to a verb (# 7521) which means to satisfy. However there is a homonym, a word that is near to this one in sound, רזון, Retson or Rezon (# 7331) which evidently means prince, and which was the name of a man of Zobah who had fled Zobah to Damascus in the time of David, and ruled some time in Damascus. While the end of that Rezon is not mentioned, it is apparent that he did not rule long, as Damascus had been subject to David, and was subject to Judah for some time after the dividing of David’s kingdom. Later, in 2 Kings chapter 14, we read that Jeroboam II, who was king of Israel for much of the same time that Uzziah had ruled Judah, had “recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel”, but now by this time it is evident that Damascus was independent of Israel once again, even though the two are now in league against Judah.

We have already shown how it is about 20 years after the death of Uzziah, which is dated in the popular chronologies to around 740 BC. By those same chronologies, Tiglath-Pileser is said to have ruled Assyria from 745 to 727 BC. But as we have discussed, the chronologies are far from perfect, and now even if Uzziah died in 740, it would be about 720 BC. However here Tiglath-Pileser III is still the king of Assyria, Samaria has not yet fallen, and its fall is still nearly ten years off from this time. So the popular chronologies are indeed wrong, even if they are approximate to a decade or two, and we still have that same ten year problem that we had in the chronology of the kings of Israel.

This is the last year of Pekah, and Hoshea will rule in Israel for nine years before Samaria falls. But in any event, about ten years from this time at the end of the rule of Pekah, Samaria does fall. But here Yahweh is recorded as having said “within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people”. So it appears that Ephraim may persist to one degree or another as a people for another fifty-five years after the fall of Samaria. Therefore this prophecy goes beyond the destruction of the capital city and its government, and speaks of the people themselves, where it seems to be insinuating that the people would lose their identity as Ephraim from this time to perhaps as late as 665 BC. The last record available of Assyrian intervention in Ephraim of which I am aware is found in Ezra chapter 4. While Ezra was writing some time after 458 BC, in his first six chapters he only recorded things which happened long before that time, in relation to the building of the second temple which had begun around 520 BC. So in Ezra chapter 4 we read: “1 Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel; 2 Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither…” Samaria was mentioned in passing in an Assyrian inscription from the tenth military campaign of Esarhaddon, in a context where he had also described a siege of Tyre after its king had revolted from Assyria. [2] According to the popular chronologies, Esarhaddon ruled Assyria from 681 to 669 BC, which covers just about all of the sixty-five year period of this prophecy from the time of Tiglath-Pileser III.

It is evident in both Scripture and in the Assyrian records that the Assyrians had taken many cities and tribes of the Israelites into captivity whose numbers are not recorded. However when Samaria was taken, it is recorded in one inscription that Sargon II had taken 27,920 prisoners from that city alone. In the course of his having done that, he stated in his records that “I conquered and sacked the towns Shinuhtu (and) Samaria, and all Israel (lit: ‘Omri-Land’ Bit Hu-um-ri-ia). I caught, like a fish, the Greek (Ionians) who live (on islands) amidst the Western Sea.” So Sargon II took more of Ephraim than Samaria itself, but there is no precise record of how many additional captives from them he had taken.

While Sargon II rebuilt and resettled the site of the city of Samaria with aliens, the fate of Damascus at this time is not quite as clear, however in the second year of his rule both cities revolted from him once again, and he moved against them, where he also stated that he had taken over nine thousand inhabitants from Rapihu, his name for a town in Gaza, but for many of the others the numbers of captives are not provided. [3]

Threescore and five years could included much of the time of Ashurbanipal, the last notable Assyrian king, who is said to have ruled for thirty-eight years in the seventh century BC. However even with that there were apparently still some of Israelites remaining in their lands, which is indicated in the reforms of Josiah and the records of 2 Chronicles chapter 34, which must have happened some time after 640 BC. It is evident in later Scriptures and in history that some Israelites managed to remain in the land, and even as late as the time of Christ they are found among the Samaritans, but they had no longer identified themselves as the nation or kingdom of either Israel or Ephraim. Of these, the Samaritan woman at the well whom Yahshua Christ had encountered, as it is described in John chapter 4, is a notable example.

But going back to the days of Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser, while he apparently refused to help Ahaz against Damascus and Israel, as it was recorded in 2 Chronicles chapter 28, he did ultimately help Ahaz indirectly. In an inscription that does not have a precise date in relation to his rule, or more likely, the precise date did not survive, some time after the ninth year of Tiglath-Pileser, it is recorded in his words that he had invaded Israel, and “They overthrew their king Pekah (Pa-qa-ha) and I placed Hoshea (A-ú-si-’) as king over them. I received from them 10 talents of gold, 1,000 (?) talents of silver as their [tri]bute and brought them to Assyria.” Of Rezin the king of Damascus, although his personal fate is not mentioned explicitly, in that same inscription we read “I laid siege to and conquered the town Hadara, the inherited property of Rezon of Damascus (Sa-imeriiu), [the place where] he was born. I brought away as prisoners 800 (of its) inhabitants with their possessions … their large (and) small cattle. 750 prisoners from Kurussa [… prisoners] from Irma, 550 prisoners from Metuna I brought (also) away. 592 towns … of the 16 districts of the country of Damascus (Sa-imeriiu) I destroyed (making them look) like hills of (mined cities over which) the flood (had swept).” [4]

Now as we continue with Isaiah, in spite of the sins of Ahaz, here Yahweh seems to exhibit much mercy. Perhaps it informs us that at least on occasion, Yahweh grants mercy not merely for the sake of the individual, but rather, so that His Will is executed in the manner in which He has spoken:

10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

This is remarkable, because the sins of Ahaz at the time of his distress were multiplied far beyond the sins for which he had been distressed in the first place, as the description of corresponding events in 2 Chronicles chapter 28 continues and we read: “19 For the LORD brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel; for he made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the LORD. 20 And Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not. 21 For Ahaz took away a portion out of the house of the LORD, and out of the house of the king, and of the princes, and gave it unto the king of Assyria: but he helped him not. 22 And in the time of his distress did he trespass yet more against the LORD: this is that king Ahaz. 23 For he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel. 24 And Ahaz gathered together the vessels of the house of God, and cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God, and shut up the doors of the house of the LORD, and he made him altars in every corner of Jerusalem. 25 And in every several city of Judah he made high places to burn incense unto other gods, and provoked to anger the LORD God of his fathers.”

But, once again in spite of his sins, Ahaz now seems to have answered Isaiah in a pious manner:

12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

With a cursory reading, the words which follow may also be mistakenly attributed to Ahaz, but they actually must have been Isaiah’s response to this answer of Ahaz:

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

The Septuagint has that last question to read “and how do ye contend against the Lord?” The translation which is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible makes it more clear that these words belonged to Isaiah, where it has “So he answered, ‘Listen, house of David! Is it not enough that you [weary] people; must you weary my God also?” Then Isaiah continues:

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Where we read the word Lord, once again the Hebrew text has the term אדני or adoni, which Isaiah had apparently used on forty-seven occasions. On nearly half of those occasions, including verse 7 of this chapter, the prophet had used the construction אדני יהוה or adoni Yahweh, which is “Lord Yahweh”.

For some reason the editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible had translated this phrase with verbs of different tenses, “… the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and his name will be Immanuel”, as if the conception of the woman has already occurred and the pregnancy has already happened, but the child was not yet born. The perceived tenses of Hebrew verbs are often found only in the letter points which had more recently been added by Jewish rabbis. However where the Hebrew text of this verse had been interpreted in the Greek Septuagint, all of the verbs are in the future tense which, as we shall see, conform to the context of these words and to the events here and in the opening verses of chapter 8. So the translation of the corresponding verse in the Septuagint, as Brenton has it, reads: “14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.” In Origen’s Hexapla, the other Greek interpretations of the Hebrew found in the translations vary somewhat, but they use no past tense verbs. Aquila of Sinope and Symmachus the Ebionite have the present tense for the verbs conceive and bear, and future tense for call. Evidently, Theodotion used future tense verbs as they are found in the Septuagint, as does also the Latin Vulgate.

Christians properly understand this sign of the virgin as a prophecy of Christ, and that is explicitly stated in the opening chapter of the Gospel of Matthew where we read, from our own translation: “18 Now the manner of the birth of Yahshua Christ was thusly: Maria His mother being betrothed to Ioseph, before their consummation had been found having conceived in the womb by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Ioseph her husband, being a just man and not wanting to make an example of her, desired to put her away secretly. 20 Then upon his considering these things, behold! A messenger of Yahweh appeared to him in a dream, saying ‘Ioseph son of David, you should not be afraid to take Maria your wife. For that which is in her is engendered from of the Holy Spirit! 21 And she shall bear a son, and you shall call His name Yahshua, for He shall save His people from their sins!’ 22 Now all this happened in order that that which had been spoken by Yahweh through the prophet would be fulfilled, saying: 23 ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and she shall bear a son, and they shall call Him Emmanouel!” which is interpreted God is with us’. 24 And Ioseph arising from sleep did as the messenger of Yahweh commanded him and took his wife, 25 yet did not know her until she bore a son, and he called His name Yahshua.”

But Jews, as well as certain presumed Christians, often claim that this prophecy was taken out of context by the apostle, and that it is not a prophecy of Christ at all. Some of them claim that it was only a prophecy of the birth of a good king who would follow Ahaz, which is Hezekiah. However as we have established here from the records of Kings and Chronicles, Hezekiah was already born when his father Ahaz had become king, since his father had ruled for only sixteen years, and Hezekiah is said to have been twenty-five when he succeeded him. So other critics claim that this is some otherwise unknown child who was born at this time.

But we would assert that events in the lives of the prophets had very often served as types for the promised Messiah, and that in that manner the events themselves are indeed prophecies of Christ, or indications of the Will of Yahweh God which would be accomplished in Christ. This is evident in many of the events in the lives of Joseph, of Joshua the son of Nun, of David especially, and of Solomon, and even of Hosea. For that same reason, to make an exhibition of the relationship between Yahweh God and His people, the prophet Hosea was told to take a harlot and later, an adulteress for wives (Hosea 1:2, 3:1), and to have children by them who were named in a manner which exemplified the consequences of the sins of Israel.

So now it is also in the life of the prophet Isaiah, and the immediate fulfillment of this prophecy is found in Isaiah chapter 8 where the prophet had written: “1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz. 2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. 4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.”

We know that Isaiah’s having had that child is a fulfillment of this prophecy, because as it is described, the purpose is the same, to make an illustration of what was to come upon Israel and Judah. The reference to butter and honey here in verse 15 is only a metaphor indicating that the child who shall be born would know good and evil even before it could eat foods such as meat or grains. Then, as we see in verse 4 of Isaiah chapter 8, “before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria”, before the child could call to his parents, the kings of Damascus and Samaria would be destroyed for what they had done to Judah, which we also now see here in reference to this sign:

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

The Septuagint has the last clause of this verse to read “… and the land shall be forsaken which thou art afraid of because of the two kings.” The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible has it to read “… the land whose two kings you dread shall be deserted.” That last reading is very close to the translation of the clause found in the New American Standard Bible.

As we have already mentioned, both Rezin and Pekah had lost their kingdoms, and apparently also their lives as Tiglath-Pileser had invaded Aram and Israel. We have already cited the relevant inscription in which he was recorded as having said concerning Israel: “They overthrew their king Pekah (Pa-qa-ha) and I placed Hoshea (A-ú-si-’) as king over them.” Then in the same inscription he had said of Rezin the king of Damascus that: “I laid siege to and conquered the town Hadara, the inherited property of Rezon of Damascus, [the place where] he was born. I brought away as prisoners 800 (of its) inhabitants with their possessions … their large (and) small cattle. 750 prisoners from Kurussa [… prisoners] from Irma, 550 prisoners from Metuna I brought (also) away. 592 towns … of the 16 districts of the country of Damascus (Sa-imeriiu) I destroyed (making them look) like hills of (mined cities over which) the flood (had swept).”

So here, where we have seen the phrase “butter and honey he shall eat”, and now in this verse where it says “before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good”, and where we discussed Isaiah chapter 8 we saw the phrase “before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother”, it should be understood that all of these sayings indicate that this child shall still be at a very young age at the time when these two kings are removed from their respective thrones.

While the child which Isaiah had as a result of this prophecy, the act of which is recorded in Isaiah chapter 8, had not been called by the name Immanuel, but was instead named Mahershalalhashbaz, in Matthew chapter 1 we read that the angel had told Joseph that “you shall call His name ‘Yahshua’”, yet both the prophet and the apostle had written that “Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and she shall bear a son, and they shall call Him ‘Emmanouel!’” So in both places, where we read “they shall call Him Emmanouel”, the reference is not to the parents of the child, but instead, it signifies what the people would say concerning the child.

The name Mahershalalhashbaz is a Hebrew phrase, מהר שׁלל חשׁ בז or maher shalal chash baz (# 4122), which means “hasting to the booty, swift to the prey”. While we do not know what had become of this child which Isaiah would have, upon his introduction to the people they must have marvelled at his name, and upon the destruction of Rezin and Pekah, the people must have realized that the words of Isaiah the prophet were true, by which they certainly should have realized that “God is with us”, as Matthew had interpreted the meaning of the name Immanuel. Likewise, in the ministry of Christ the people who recognized Him had known that same thing, that “God is with us”, and there were many acknowledgments of that fact in both history and in Scripture.

As for the cutting off of two kings, there may be a parallel at the time of Christ which I may conjecture here. Since after Yahshua Christ had been born, and before He came of age, two kings were cut off, which were the first Herod whom the Jews call “the great”, and then his son and successor, Herod Archelaus. The first Herod had died when Christ was but an infant, and Archelaus was dethroned and banished from Judaea only a few years later. While it may be argued that these were kings of Judaea, since they were actually Edomites and not of Israel, and since they were installed by the Romans at the expense of the Israelite high priests, they too were enemies of Judah and enemies of Judah’s rightful King, which is Christ. So perhaps that predicament may further strengthen the contention that this is indeed a type for the Messiah, and therefore it is a prophecy of Christ.

Finally, many Jewish and even some presumably Christian commentators dispute the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek terms for virgin which are found both here and in the Gospel of Matthew. The Hebrew word translated as virgin here in verse 14 is עלמה or alemah (# 5959), and Strong’s defined it as “a lass (as veiled or private)” on account of the meaning of its root word, ﬠלם or alem (# 5956, 5958) which is to veil or conceal or as an adjective describes “something kept out of sight”, as Strong’s has it in the appropriate entries. In the ancient world, unmarried women typically wore veils and were kept out of sight in that manner. Many of the aforementioned commentators insist that the word does not signify a virgin, but merely a maiden, an unmarried woman. But in Scripture, a young woman who was unmarried was expected to have been a virgin, or otherwise, she may have suffered the punishment of an adulteress.

The Greek word for virgin in the Septuagint, both here and where verse 14 was cited in Matthew chapter 1, is παρθένος, which is a virgin. The critics also contest that this word meant virgin, however the famous temple of Athena in classical Athens, which was built after the Persian War in the 5th century BC, was called the Parthenon, after Athena Parthenos, the virgin Greek goddess. Regardless of her age, Athena was considered a παρθένος or virgin because, as the myths go, she had never had sexual intercourse with a man, and even a mythical attempt on the part of the Greek god Hephaistos to rape her had failed. The myths are sufficient proof in themselves of the meaning of the term παρθένος as a virgin, but the enemies of Christ would pervert the language in order to destroy the image of everything that is pure and good.

Liddell & Scott define παρθένος as “maiden, girl” and they claim that it was used “of unmarried women who are not virgins”. But the examples which they offer where παρθένος was supposedly used of women who were not virgins do not hold, because they all describe a woman who was expected to have been a virgin, except for the circumstances which are being described. So we shall briefly discuss these examples.

First, in Homer’s Iliad, Book 2, a woman named Astyoche was called “the honored maiden” and with that it was described how she conceived of a child by Ares, after he laid in wait for her in her bedroom and had violated her in secret. So of course, after that she would no longer have been a παρθένος, or a virgin. Likewise in Pindar’s Pythian Odes, 3.34, Koronis was called a παρθένος, a maiden or virgin, where it was described that “the maiden was living by the banks of Lake Boibas”, but there she had surreptitiously laid with a stranger, which was later discovered by Apollo, a crime of adultery for which she had then been punished.

A third example, found from line 530 of The Clouds, a comedy written by 5th century BC Greek poet Aristophanes, is a whimsical portrait of a nymph who conceived a child when she was “yet a virgin” and not old enough to have had children, something which was stated explicitly. Therefore this is not a valid example of the use of the term to describe young women who were not virgins, because once again a time was being described where she was a virgin, but that was only mentioned in a description of this anomaly, where she had somehow become pregnant at a time when she was too young, and for that reason she had exposed the child, having left it for dead. But it is not said after that that she was still a παρθένος, or virgin. None of these examples properly describe young women who were not virgins, because the word was not used to describe them after the time of their transgression.

Finally, in Sophocles' play Women of Trachis, from line 1219, is the story of Iolè, a princess of Trachis whom Heracles had taken among other captives, and he kept her for a wife, or concubine. So Sophocles had depicted Heracles as having called her a παρθένος, or maiden, although it was at a time where she was no longer a virgin because she had obviously been his concubine. However men who take a virgin as a wife very frequently continue to refer to such women as their virgins, since they had not known any other men, and in the context of Women of Trachis that was also the case of Iolè. While Iolè could not have been a virgin to any other man, she was acquired as a virgin by Heracles, and because she was dear to him, he continued to consider her his virgin, something which she certainly had been.

Only a sinner could imagine themselves to still be virgins, long after they lost their virginity, and then claim that virgins are not really virgins. Only a sinner, or a devil, would accept a sin, and use it to change the meaning of a term, in order to validate their sin. We, however, shall not, because a παρθένος is a virgin, and nothing less.

That the Hebrew word עלמה or alemah describes a virgin is evident where it is used of the young Rebekah in Genesis chapter 24 (24:43), or in Exodus chapter 2 where it was used to describe the young sister of the infant Moses, who witnessed his having been exposed and then taken by the daughter of the pharaoh. Although it appears in Scripture on only nine occasions, on three of those occasions it was used in the plural to describe singers in the temple, and women dedicated to the temple should also have been virgins, which was the fate of the daughter of Jephthah who had lamented her virginity because she was about to be dedicated to God. In other places, such as the Song of Songs (6:8), it was used to distinguish virgins from queens and concubines.

If Isaiah went into a woman who was a virgin, as he did in chapter 8, and she conceived, then one may say that a virgin had conceived, but of course, after she had the child she would no longer be a virgin, except perhaps in the eyes of Isaiah because she had been his virgin. Thus it is with Mary, that she was a virgin when she conceived, however she did not conceive by Joseph. So we read in Matthew chapter 1 that “24 … Ioseph arising from sleep did as the messenger of Yahweh commanded him and took his wife, 25 yet did not know her until she bore a son…”

Now we shall resume with this chapter, where Isaiah is still disclosing the will of Yahweh to Ahaz:

17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. 18 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19 And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes.

The day that Ephraim departed from Judah is a reference to the day that, after the death of Solomon, the kingdom was divided and Jeroboam I had become the king of most of the tribes of Israel, while only Benjamin and a portion of Levi had been left to Judah. Here it is also foretold to Ahaz that the king of Assyria would come upon Judah. The references to insects inhabiting the desolate valleys, the holes in the rocks, and all the thorns and bushes seems to be an allegory describing the multitude of the armies which the king of Assyria would bring upon Judah.

20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard.

Here it is clear that Yahweh is likening his “hire” of the king of Assyria to execute punishment upon Judah to the hire of a razor. As insects can eat a land clear of vegetation, a razor can also shave a land clear, for which the body of a man is used as an allegory here. So perhaps the meaning is better represented in the New American Standard Bible where we read: “20 In that day the Lord will shave with a razor, hired from regions beyond the Euphrates (that is, with the king of Assyria), the head and the hair of the legs; and it will also remove the beard.” but it is even better represented in Brenton’s Septuagint: “20 In that day the Lord shall shave with the hired razor of the king of Assyria beyond the river the head, and the hairs of the feet, and will remove the beard.”

21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep; 22 And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land. 23 And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns. 24 With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns. 25 And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle.

These words seem to be informing Ahaz that a day is coming when, on account of the king of Assyria, anyone left in the land would have only whatever cattle he may find for sustenance, because otherwise the land will be shaved bare, or swept clean, of all of its industry and produce. In the New American Standard Bible this same passage reads: “21 Now it will come about in that day that a man may keep alive a heifer and a pair of sheep; 22 and it will happen that because of the abundance of the milk produced he will eat curds, for everyone that is left within the land will eat curds and honey. 23 And it will come about in that day, that every place where there used to be a thousand vines, valued at a thousand shekels of silver, will become briars and thorns. 24 People will come there with bows and arrows because all the land will be briars and thorns. 25 And as for all the hills which used to be cultivated with the hoe, you will not go there for fear of briars and thorns; but they will become a place for pasturing oxen and for sheep to trample.” Evidently the briars and thorns are allegories for people. One does not defend against literal briars and thorns with bow and arrows, but only against outlying robbers and brigands, perhaps the Canaanites who were to be as briars and thorns to the children of Israel from ancient times.

As we proceed with Isaiah chapter 8, Isaiah himself explains for us how it was that a virgin had conceived, and further prophecy concerning the Assyrians shall compliment our interpretation of this passage. So Isaiah chapter 8 is in large part a parallelism with certain of the text in this chapter.

Footnotes

1 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament 3rd edition, James Pritchard, editor, 1969, Harvard University Press, pp. 287-288.

2 ibid., p. 292.

3 ibid., pp. 284-285.

4 ibid., pp. 283-284.

5 Origenis Hexaplorum, Fridericus Field, AA.M., E Typographeo Clarendoniano (The Clarendon Press), 1875, Volume 2 p. 443.