One of the disadvantages of growing up in church, particularly Evangelical churches, is that from the time you step foot in Sunday School classrooms, you are inundated with Bible stories: Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, Abraham and Sarah, Joseph’s coat of many colors, the Plagues of Egypt, the Parting of the Red Sea, Mount Sinai, Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, David and Goliath, Solomon’s wisdom…well…let’s face it, after Solomon, I doubt there were too many other Old Testament stories. Okay, okay, Elijah and the chariot of fire—that was always popular.
And then, of course, there is Jesus: the virgin birth, 12-year-old Jesus in the Temple, the various healings and exorcisms, and of course the Transfiguration, the triumphal entry on a donkey, Judas, the Last Supper, the Jesus before the Sanhedrin, Jesus before Pilate, the Crucifixion, and of course, the Resurrection—Jesus wins! Take that, you Pharisees!
So, how is all this a disadvantage, you ask? It’s simple: we grow up thinking we know all about those stories because we’ve been listening to them since Sunday School. We tend not to realize that the Sunday School versions of those stories are over-simplistic and “dumbed-down” versions suitable for children. We thus think we know what the stories about, when we really don’t know what the stories are about.
For example, if you sat in on my classes when I simply give my students a brief overview of Solomon’s reign as recorded in I Kings 1-11, you’d be quite shocked. I mean, you probably think, “Solomon: wealthy and wise; that bluff to split the baby thing; he built the Temple; got a little horny when he hit his mid-life crisis, ended up having lots of wives and concubines, and built a bunch of shrines for foreign idols—doesn’t seem too ‘wise’ at that point, but hey, we all make mistakes! Overall, Solomon was pretty good for most of his life, right?”
Well, I think the writer of I Kings might quibble a bit with that Sunday School version of Solomon’s life, to say the least. But once you realize just what kind of king Solomon ended up being, it makes more sense why the kingdom was torn apart in a civil war, seemingly as soon as Solomon’s body was laid in the ground. Simply put, I Kings is telling us, “Hey, look at Solomon, the ‘wisest’ and ‘wealthiest’ king in Israel’s history—a royal screw-up!”
My point? For many (if not most) of us, our superficial familiarity with the stories of the Bible often blind us to the fact that we have never really read the Bible, and are thus actually quite ignorant of much of what is in it.
That’s why when we read Matthew’s infancy narrative, particularly Matthew 1:23, where he quotes Isaiah 7:14, it never occurs to us that Isaiah 7:14 had an original context in the history of Israel—it’s a prophecy, therefore it is a prediction of the virgin Mary and Jesus. End of story. Move on.
But You Really Need to Know the Beginnings of that Story
Well, let’s not move on so quickly. Let’s try to understand and appreciate how that story develops first. Remember Wayne’s World, when they’d want to take you to a different time? That’s what we’re going to do in order to understand Isaiah 7:14 in its original context. We’re going to travel back in time to roughly 742 BC Jerusalem, when Ahaz, the new king of Judah, was facing a potential crisis: the northern kingdom of Israel (sometimes called Ephraim) had teamed up the neighboring country of Aram (also known as Syria) and they were threatening to invade Judah—hence, the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis.
Now, there is a lot of issues and complexities to this time in Israel’s history that biblical scholars love to discuss and debate. I should know, I wrote my entire PhD thesis on these very issues that surround Isaiah 7:14 in its original context. If you want to give yourself your very own Christmas treat, grab some hot cocoa, wrap yourself up in a blanket by the fireplace, and go to this site, where you can actually read my entire PhD thesis: Isaiah 7:14—Identity and Function Within the Bookend Structure of Proto-Isaiah. If you feel reading 300 pages might be a bit too time-consuming, though, allow me to give a much briefer glimpse regarding the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis.
What’s Going on in Isaiah 7 (and chapters 8-12 for that matter)?
In all seriousness, though, once you simply understand the situation regarding the threat Israel and Aram were posing to Judah, particularly to Ahaz, the new king of Judah, Isaiah 7 actually becomes quite easy to understand. In fact, Isaiah 7:1-2 lay out that very historical situation: Ahaz was scared of the threat posed by Israel and Aram.
It’s at this point that the prophet Isaiah takes his son Shear-jashub (the name means “A remnant will return”), and he goes to confront Ahaz. In Isaiah 7:3-9, Isaiah basically says this to Ahaz: “Hey Ahaz! Don’t be afraid of those two punks, Rezin and the son of Remaliah (Rezin was the king of Aram, and the “son of Remaliah” was Pekah, the king of Israel)! They won’t succeed! Just put your trust in YHWH!” Got it? That’s it: Isaiah’s message to Ahaz—Don’t worry! Trust YHWH!”
Not only that, but then Isaiah gives Ahaz a veritable gift. In 7:10-11, Isaiah says to Ahaz that he can ask YHWH for any sign at all, and YHWH would do it, just so Ahaz could have confidence that YHWH would protect him, just like He promised. Ahaz’s response in 7:12, though, is simple: “No, I’m not going to bother!” And why not? It becomes quite obvious, both in Isaiah 7-12, as well as the other account in II Kings 16—Ahaz chose not to trust YHWH, and instead appealed to the king of Assyria for protection, after all, Assyria was the major empire of the time—they could protect Judah, as long as Ahaz agreed to pledge allegiance to Assyria. The thing was, though, Assyria was kind of like the mob. You ask the godfather for a favor, O he’ll do you a favor…but then he’ll never leave you alone, and you’ll soon realize that you got more than you bargained for. (Think how Lando Calrissian felt when he made that deal with Darth Vader, to hand Han Solo over. Assyria was the Darth Vader of the time).
Needless to say, Ahaz’s complete refusal to put his trust in YHWH was not only an affront to YHWH, it was going to prove to be incredibly stupid. And it is thus in that historical context of (A) the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, and (B) Ahaz’s refusal to trust YHWH, in favor of appealing to Assyria for help, that the famous Emmanuel prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 makes sense.
Isaiah 7:14 in the Context of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis
So what was Isaiah’s reaction to Ahaz’s refusal to take YHWH up on His offer? Quite simply, the rest of Isaiah 7:13-25 can be summed up this way: “You idiot! You asked Assyria for help? Well, Assyria will come in and help alright! Assyria will destroy both Israel and Aram, just like you asked (7:16) …but Assyria isn’t going to leave! Assyria will put you under its boot! Judah is in for a heap of trouble!” (7:17-20).
In fact, once you realize that, you can read the entire unit of Isaiah 7-12, and you’ll see that Assyria is mentioned all over the place. The message is clear: Ahaz failed to trust in YHWH, and put his trust in the Darth Vader of the time—he opened the door to a whole lot of hurt on Judah, and Judah was going to suffer…a lot!
So How Does Emmanuel Fit in to All This?
In the midst of this avalanche of prophecies of doom all throughout Isaiah 7-12, though, there seems to be a glimmer of hope. First, Isaiah tells Ahaz (during the time of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, mind you), “Here’s a sign for you! Look! The almah is going to get pregnant and give birth to a son (i.e. Emmanuel). By the time he grows up Assyria’s going to destroy Israel and Aram!”
Now, I know what you’re thinking. That prophecy actually doesn’t sound too hopeful! Whoever that child is, Isaiah is saying that Assyria is going to come in and terrorize Judah within that child’s lifetime!
You’re right: that prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is one of coming doom and devastation for Judah at the hands of Assyria. This is re-emphasized in Isaiah 8:1-8—at the end of yet another prophecy about the destruction Assyria would bring, Isaiah equates Assyria to a flood that will sweep into the land of Judah…and he calls Judah, the land of Emmanuel! Again, the Emmanuel prophecy seems to be associated with God’s judgment on Judah by the hand of Assyria, because of Ahaz’s display of unfaithfulness to YHWH.
Simply put, Ahaz was going to realize that God was alive and active in Judah (i.e. “God with us”), because God was going to respond with judgment upon Judah because of Ahaz’s unfaithfulness. When you’ve done something wrong, and your mom says, “Wait until your father gets home,” you are fully aware that dad is home, when you’re draped across his knee and he’s spanking your behind!
Ahaz, you’ll know God is with Judah, because He’s going to spank you with the wooden spoon of Assyria!
But Where’s the Glimmer of Hope?
That’s not the end of the story, though, because that Emmanuel child is also the means by which hope is kept alive in Judah. For it is Emmanuel who is being talked about in Isaiah 9:2-7 (another “Christmas-time” passage associated with Jesus: “Unto us a child is born; to us a son is given”)—Isaiah prophesied that it would be through Emmanuel that He would turn around and humiliate Assyria.
And then there is Isaiah 11:1-11 (yes, another “Christmas-time” passage: “There will come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit. And the Spirit of YHWH will read upon him…”). It is through Emmanuel, the “shoot of Jesse,” that YHWH would save the remnant of His people who suffered under Assyria. (Remember when Isaiah first went to Ahaz? He took his son, “A remnant will return”?).
Simply put, when you read Isaiah 7:14 and consider the fact that Isaiah made the Emmanuel prophecy during the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis, and when you consider it in light of the larger context of Isaiah 7-12, the fullness of what Isaiah ended up saying to Ahaz is this:
“Ahaz, because of your unfaithfulness to YHWH, you’ve opened the floodgates to oppression by Assyria. That is YHWH’s judgment on you for refusing to trust Him! This will happen by the time that child to whom that woman gives birth grows up! But YHWH is going to work through that child to eventually humiliate Assyria and save the remnant of Judah, because that child is going to be faithful to YHWH…something you have refused to be!”
So Who Is Emmanuel? Look No Further than Isaiah 36-39
In that original context, who do you think the Emmanuel child was? A child born to a woman in Ahaz’s court, who would witness the Assyrian destruction of both Israel and Aram, but also the Assyrian invasion into Judah—Judah, the land that would be known as “Emmanuel’s land”? A child who was clearly a royal figure who would put his trust in YHWH and be the means by which YHWH humiliates Assyria and lifts the Assyrian boot off from Judah’s neck?
The answer isn’t really a mystery. The first part of the Book of Isaiah (scholars call it “Proto-Isaiah”—it covers chapters 1-39) gives the answer in a very artistic, narrative fashion. Now, “Proto-Isaiah” covers the time of the historical prophet Isaiah, roughly from 750-700 BC. The first “big event” recorded is the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis in Isaiah 7-12. The last “big event” recorded is found in Isaiah 36-39: it recounts the invasion that Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, launched into Judah in order to destroy Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, because Hezekiah had rebelled against Assyria by refusing to pay any more tribute to Assyria.
Long story short: Assyria “flooded” into Judah, destroyed 46 towns in Hezekiah’s kingdom, and put Jerusalem under siege. Hezekiah appealed to Isaiah and asked Isaiah to pray to YHWH for him and for the remnant of Judah. And, in response to Hezekiah’s demonstration of faithfulness to YHWH, Isaiah assured him that Sennacherib would never set foot in Jerusalem. Instead, he’d suffer a humiliating defeat, and would return back to Nineveh.
And lo and behold, that’s what happened. Sennacherib never took Jerusalem. His army suffered huge losses outside of Jerusalem’s walls, and he high-tailed it back to Nineveh, where he was assassinated by two of his sons.
Hezekiah, the Emmanuel child Isaiah prophesied about during the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis during the reign of his father Ahaz, put his faith in YHWH during his own crisis of Sennacherib’s invasion (something Ahaz had failed to do)—and, just as Isaiah had prophesied, YHWH honored Hezekiah’s faithfulness by repelling the Assyrian threat.
Hezekiah was the Emmanuel child of Isaiah’s prophecy. And that’s why we have a Book of Isaiah to begin with: Isaiah’s prophecies regarding Emmanuel during the time of Assyrian oppression came true, and Isaiah was vindicated as a true prophet of YHWH. His prophecies were preserved by the Jews, because what he had prophesied had come true.
Conclusion
This identification of Hezekiah with passages like Isaiah 7:14, 9:1-6, and 11:1-11 is actually nothing new. It’s found in Jewish rabbinic writings known as the Targums, and there is even an account of a debate between a certain Jew named Trypho and the early Christian philosopher, Justin Martyr, in which Trypho basically says, “We Jews have always known Isaiah 7:14 is about Hezekiah,” to which Justin replied, “No! It’s a prediction about Jesus!”
Well, I think Trypho was right: Isaiah 7:14 is originally about Hezekiah. But I also think Justin Martyr is right: Isaiah 7:14 is about Jesus…but Justin Martyr is wrong about one thing: it’s wrong to think of Isaiah 7:14 as a prediction about Jesus.
Now I know…you’re probably thinking, “But Hezekiah’s mother couldn’t have been a virgin—are you saying that that Hebrew word almah doesn’t mean virgin?” Basically, yes. The Hebrew word that specifically denotes “virgin” is betulah. Now, almah can be used to refer to a virgin, but that must come from the context of the passage, and in the original context of Isaiah 7, there’s nothing that would suggest the almah is a woman is a virgin.
The ambiguity of the word, though, does have an impact on Matthew’s infancy narrative. Tomorrow, I’ll explain what I mean. Tomorrow, I’ll explain how knowing that these famous “Christmas-time” passages of Isaiah 7:14, 9:1-6, and 11:1-11 were originally about Hezekiah actually help us understand Jesus better.
Thanks …. this has caused me to go back and read these passages in Isaiah. Excellent illustrations about our images we get in in Sunday school. The images we get of David start to change when we read about David’s action in II Samuel.
Yes indeed. An actual reading of much in the Old Testament reveals a much messier human existence than so many of those Sunday School lessons suggest.
Fascinating and winsome argument!! My biggest question is whether Hezekiah was already born at the time of the prophecy, and how would this effect your reading of the passage?
Good question. The problem with my argument is that when one looks at the chronologies and the reigns of the kings of Judah in the 8th century, that the dates don’t line up. BUT…there is an additional problem–the chronologies don’t make sense the way they are presented in II Kings. There is a lot to it, but here it is in a nutshell:
1. We are told that Assyria besieged the northern kingdom of Israel’s capital of Samaria in the 4th year of Hezekiah, and that it was destroyed in Hezekiah’s 6th year. The fall of Samaria happened in 722/721 BC. So that would mean that Hezekiah became king around 727 BC. And II Kings says he was 25 when he took the throne, which would put his birth around 752 BC, BEFORE the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis.
2. But then we are told that Sennacherib attacked Judah and besieged Jerusalem in Hezekiah’s 14th year. That happened in 701 BC. BUT that would mean that Hezekiah became king around 715 BC, which contradicts what II Kings 18 says about the fall of Samaria.
Simply put, there is something off in the dates given in II Kings 18. I think the easiest explanation is that there are two scribal errors. I can’t replicate it here, but basically, the difference in Hebrew between a number in its “teens” (i.e. 14th) and its “20s” (i.e. 24th) is a single, short pen stroke in the last letter. I think, therefore, that (1) “Hezekiah’s 14th year” should be “Hezekiah’s 24th year”–and since he rebelled in 703 BC to prompt Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 BC, that would place his coming to the throne in 727 BC–and that would coincide with what we are told regarding the fall of Samaria. And (2) when we are told he was “25” when he became king, it should be “15”–and that would place his birth at 742 BC, smack dab in the middle of the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis.
Thanks for the response Joel! Yes I agree, the more you look into the chronologies of the kings, the more complicate it becomes. So many people with different theories and none of them seem foolproof, so yours makes as good a sense as any I’ve come across. I appreciate the posts and the engagement!
Emmanuel is not Hezekiah. Rationalists deny any messianic character to Isaiah’s phrase, and thus, following ancient rabbinic interpretations, they assume that the mysterious child is Ahaz’s son, Hezekiah, since he was actually going to be king of Judah, and would be soon to be born. , deserving the symbolic name of Emmanuel, because he would enjoy particular protection from Yahweh in his reign . But in this case it is difficult to conceive that the prophet, speaking to the king, called the queen a maiden, when she was already a legitimate wife. Furthermore, when Isaiah uttered the prophecy (around 734 BC, on the occasion of the Syro-Ephraimite invasion), Hezekiah had already been born and was at least nine years old, or eighteen, according to another chronological calculation. But, above all, what makes the identification of Emmanuel with the historical Hezekiah impossible is that the qualities that in 9:5 are applied to the mysterious child Emmanuel totally go beyond the historical personality of the pious Hezekiah: How to call “Wonderful counselor, God strong.,” to a king like Hezekiah, who showed himself so reckless on the occasion of the embassy of Merodachbaladan and who cried like a child when Isaiah announced to him the impending death? Similar objections can be raised against the hypothesis that Immanuel was a son of Isaiah : How could he call his own wife (whom he calls a prophetess in 8:3) ‘almah, maiden,’ who, when Isaiah uttered the prediction, he already had at least his son Shear-Yasub? And much less could the princely qualities assigned to Emmanuel in 9:5 be applied to a future son of Isaiah.
For the same reasons we must reject the opinion that Emmanuel is any son of one of the many young mothers who were going to give birth in those days, in that, for the liberation that God was going to work, they could call, in sign of gratitude, to his son Emmanuel (“God with us”) 37. We have already said that the symbolic name of the “liberation” from the Syro-Ephraimite danger was that of Isaiah’s second son, Maher-salal-jas-baz 38 Furthermore, the prophet speaks of “the maiden”: “ha’almah,” emphasizing her as an exceptional being, and this could not apply to any young woman of her time. Undoubtedly the prophet thinks of a person who psychologically centers their attention, considering it as something out of the ordinary. https://mercaba.org/Biblia/Comentada/profetas_isaias.htm…
The analysis of all the verses of the Bible in which the word “almah (Genesis 24,43; Ex 2,8; Ps 68,26; Song 6,8; Proverbs 30:19) 3 shows that beyond a vague text of Proverbs 30:19 4 the word never refers to a married woman. Young and still unmarried woman and was considered in Israel as a virgin, unless proven otherwise, which clearly states Dt 22,13-21 (cf Ex 22,15-16; cf. also 2 Samuel 13,1; Koh 42, 9-14; 2 Mac 3,19; 1,18 Mch 3, 4 Mch 18,7 7). Under the command of the Law ST is missing of virginity in the young wife of newlyweds who was in Israel punished with death (Dt 22,20-21; cf. Joseph’s negative reaction to Mary’s pregnancy in Mt 1,19). In Israel virgins stood out among the multitude her way of dressing (2 Samuel 13.18). Therefore, an unmarried woman openly boasts of her virginity, not being able, in principle, in any way in the social customs prevailing in Israel to hide her lack of virginity (cf.. Song 6.8, where the virgins (‘alamot) si contrasted “nałożnicom real”). From this point of view, a young, still unmarried woman is referred to in the Bible as ‘almah, a virgin. In the Old Testament, except for the fragment considered Isaiah 7:14, we have at least one indisputable place insofar as ‘virgin soul was determined. Namely, in Genesis 24:16, Rebekah determined the date betulah (“virgin”), and in Genesis 24:43 it was determined by the expression ‘almah. It can be seen from this that the words almah’ and betulah are used interchangeably as synonyms.
On the other hand, at the time of the formation of the LXX, the ancient Eastern languages did not exist specifically dedicated word “virgin”, which, as today in Polish, means strictly and only “virgin”. Not only is the word “almah,” but even the Hebrew word betulah, which has a term more directed to the essence of virginity, according to philologists it also does not quite assume virginity. Since the Hebrew text Isaiah 7:14 could not clearly e unequivocally give in times of formation of the LXX the idea of virginity using no word, while the Greek parthenos (“virgin”) much better defines the essence of virginity, it can be assumed that the Hebrew translators of the Greek Septuagint, which in pre-Christian times to translate the word “almah in Greek parthenos – “virgin”, there were, as in the case of Gen 24,43 9 specific reasons to maintain that only one and there is no other word so translated also in Isaiah 7:14. This indicates that in spirit he was reading the text of pre-Christian Jewish tradition, which was reflected in that translation of the Septuagint. This tradition can be justified for other reasons.
That is, for some reason, it can be assumed that the prophet Isaiah, who wrote his words of Isaiah 7:14 in the 8th century BC 10, that he understood the word “almah more in the sense of “virgin” than just in the sense of ‘young woman,’ as he is presently trying to emphasize in one of the opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. This is indicated by several circumstances. The first is the meaning of the archaic word ‘ almah, which, evidently, Isaiah brought forth in a much stronger emphasis being placed on virginity than became perhaps later, when the meaning of the word meant primarily young women. The fact that the word “almah in Isaiah gave birth a much stronger emphasis placed on the essence of virginity is confirmed by the discovery of Zendżirli, where in one of the inscriptions of the 9th century BC, which is the inscription was dedicated to a king Kilamu, the word “almah” is indisputably in relation to a woman who has not yet given birth, and also for virgin. This is also confirmed by CH Gordon, who in his Ugaritic dictionary Vie Ugaritic Manual 12 showed that the corresponding Hebrew word ‘almah Ugaritic glmt is repeatedly identified with the Ugaritic btlt, which corresponds to the Hebrew betulah – “virgin”. An example of such synonymous applications mentioned in the previous sentence, two words may be some ancient Ugaritic inscription, which reads: hl glmt tld b 👎, which translates as: a girl (glmt, which corresponds to ‘almah – ed JL .) A son . It appears that this glmt is at the beginning of this text referred to as btlt – “virgin”. Perhaps the existence of the same synonym is also provided by a Phoenician inscription from Ras Shamra, published in 1933 by Virolleanda, in the magazine “Syria”. The inscription reads: ast tq hbtk glmt ts rb, which translates: bring the woman to her house, the young lady (glmt) to enter her yard. It is also worth noting that Jerome drew attention to the fact that the Punic word alma simply meant virgin.
Furthermore, another reason why the translators of the LXX decided to translate almah to accentuate the word parthénos virginity in Isaiah 7:14, may be because, according to what we know, Isaiah 7 does not mention his father Emmanuel. It is not mentioned, also, that it is he who will give the name Emmanuel, although the custom existed in ancient patriarchal Israel, 20 (see also Genesis 16:15; Judges 8:31; Tb 1,9; Oz 1,4.6; Mt 1,21.25; Luke 1:13). With the Masoretic text he will give the name of Emmanuel’s mother: weqara’t-“and she is called” (Isaiah 7:14). With the Vulgate and Peszitty we have to name it like the others. Only a few LXX codes say that Ahaz give the name of the child, but the lesson is not considered credible. For the most credible it is considered a lesson from the Qumrańskiego text, where we find a form of the masculine third person, which in Hebrew notes, however, the importance of non-personal. The Qumran lesson is therefore in line with the Vulgate and the Peshitta, and that it cannot be concluded that the father will give the child a name, which presupposes the absence of it (and therefore the virginal conception in Isaiah 7:14).
For the translation of ‘almah of Isaiah 7:14 the word “virgin” went beyond the LXX also other ancient translations, also explaining the word “almah by the word “virgin”. Namely, the Vulgate is in Isaiah 7: 14 virgo, Peshitta has betulto, the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel has ullemeto, alimto, corresponding to the word “almah 22. With these translations, which do not agree, it is true, some ancient ST translations, namely Aquila, Theodocjon and Symmach who explain the word “almah by neanis (“young”), but today among scholars it is widely accepted The fact that 24 are translations is not only much younger than the LXX, but they arise mainly under hostility to Christianity and due to competition with the LXX. Therefore, these differences must be considered as opposite terms of the Septuagint, purely controversial and marked by a lack of objectivity. It should also be noted that the translators of the LXX elsewhere than in Isaiah 7:14 to translate the word “almah by neanis, meaning “young man.” They seemed, therefore, cause, which is the full meaning of the word, which contradicts the assertion of some, apparently simply “wrong” in its translation.
For all these reasons translation of the word “almah by parthénos is not wrong and the same thing: Evangelist, writing in his quote from Isaiah “virgin” (Mt 1,23), cited as occurred in the Greek ST (i.e. in Isaiah 7, 14, LXX) translated by Jews. Evangelists nothing right here not artificially arranged. Next Agnosiewicz writes:
Czytaj więcej na: http://lewandowski.apologetyka.info/…/maria-dziewica,74…