Isaiah Chapter 27 Notes

Notes on Isaiah 27

V.1: According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew word translated here as “serpent” (“fleeing serpent” and “twisting serpent”) is nachash, the same word used in Genesis 3:1 to designate the serpent that tempted Eve to sin.  I realize that that does not prove that Isaiah intended this serpent to reference the one in Genesis; nevertheless, I do think it is appropriate, ultimately, to interpret all such creatures (serpents, dragons, Leviathan) as images of Satan, from Genesis through Revelation.  The New Testament certainly makes this connection, but I believe that the book of Job also suggests it by providing detailed information about both Satan and the Leviathan: no other book in the Old Testament provides such detail on those two subjects, and while no direct connection between the two is made, the fact that they bookend the work so noticeably suggests a parallel to me.

Of course, I also believe that the dragon, or serpent, or Leviathan, may sometimes be used in a more immediate sense to refer to other evil beings or institutions (especially in Isaiah) just as Immanuel has ultimate and immediate references.  In this particular chapter, I agree with Barnes that the dragon and serpent both immediately refer to the kingdom of Babylon.  The reason I believe this is because verses 12-13 perfectly describe the Jewish return from Babylonian captivity, and they do it directly after they describe “the fortified city” that God destroys because its people lack understanding.  Without verses 12-13, the identity of this fortified city would be more difficult to determine, but as it is, I think it must be Babylon.

v. 4: The symbolism of these thorns is a little difficult.  The vineyard must represent the people of God, but the thorns could be either the evil behavior of the Jewish nation or the wicked aggression of other nations against the Jews.  I do not know which is correct.  The NRSV reads, “I will march to battle against it [the vineyard],” but Luther translates the passage to say that God will march against them (the briars and thorns)[1]

v. 5: This is sad; the repetition makes it seem like God longs for reconciliation.

Vs. 7-8: These are very difficult verses.  Barnes, writing about verse 8 states, “This expression does not convey an intelligible idea,” and one has only to look at the various translations to see how true that statement is.

Verse 7 is made up of two rhetorical questions[2], and these both claim that one party has not been destroyed as completely as another party.  I take the fact that the first party has not been destroyed as completely as the second to mean that the first party is closer to God.  This agrees with Luther’s translation, which says overtly that the first party is Israel and the second seine Feinde, “his [Israel’s] enemies.” The NKJ version translates the first rhetorical question like Luther, naming Israel as the first party, but in the second rhetorical question, it changes the identity of the first party, implying that it is God himself.[3] I do not know how this could be justified, but if it is a correct translation, it could be a reference to the crucifixion.  The NRSV translation is less specific in identifying the two parties.  It simply says “they” and “them.”

Although the NRSV says that the meaning of the Hebrew word it translates as “expulsion” in v. 8 is uncertain, all of the translations I am looking at translate the word similarly.  Thus, Luther translates it as wegschicktest“[you] sent away,” and OKJ says “thou sendest it forth,” and the NKJ says “by sending it away.”  Given the fact that vs. 12 –13 seem to reference Babylon, I think the “expulsion” mentioned here in v. 8 probably refers to the Babylonian Captivity.  If it does, then the “east wind” by which God accomplishes this expulsion could be an allegory for Babylon, the empire from the east that took the Jews into captivity.  As for what “it” should refer to in the phrases “by sending it away,” and “du es wegschicktest,” I am assuming that the writer meant Israel.  This is a little difficult, however, since what the NKJ translates as “it,” the NRSV translates as “them.”  I can see how both “it” and “them” could reference Israel, but I do not understand how one version could translate the word as a singular pronoun while the other could translate it as a plural.  Luther translates the word as es “it” but I cannot see what it refers back to.  If it refers back to Israel (a masculine noun), the pronoun should beden.  Nevertheless, despite these difficulties I still believe these verses refer to the captivity of Israel by Babylon.

---

[1] “…so wollte ich über sie [them] herfallen.”  If he had marched against the vineyard (der Weinberg), the pronoun would have been ihn.

[2] They are simply statements in Luther’s translation.

[3] “Has He been slain according to the slaughter of those who were slain by Him?”

Isaiah Chapter 26 Notes

My notes on Isaiah 26

v. 1: I believe the phrase “on that day” links this chapter with the previous one.[1]

Vs. 9-10: These two verses emphasize the fact that humanity learns most directly about the righteousness of God when he moves to judge the wicked.  One reason for this is that at such times the righteous feel vindication as well as renewed conviction for their beliefs, which the indefinite prosperity of the wicked might eventually weaken or destroy. Another reason is that the wicked are made at last to see their own works as wicked works.  In fact, v. 10 seems to indicate that this is the only way the wicked are likely to learn about righteousness.  Of course the term “righteous” does not really belong to any human in this life except Jesus, but if someone obeys (even after much failure) the dictates of conscience and reason, then I believe he or she is “righteous” as these verses define the term.  If somebody brazenly disregards these dictates and can only be convinced to change by disaster, then he or she is “wicked” as these verses define the term.  The good news is that even for the wicked (a term which includes us all, ultimately) there is hope after such disaster.

Vs. 16-19: I think “they” of vs. 16 and 19 refers to the same people as “we” does in vs. 17 and 18, i.e. the Jews.  With this in mind, I would paraphrase the poetry of verses 16-19 as follows: we have turned to you [God] for help because our wickedness brought horrible suffering [like that of a woman in labor] to us, and we were unable to do anything to relieve ourselves of the suffering [like a pregnant woman who could only give birth to wind, not a living child].  Now we know you [God] will deliver us from our suffering because we have turned to you.

I believe that is an accurate paraphrase of the verses, but I would also like to dwell a little on their poetic imagery.  The image I am most certain of is that of the resurrection of the dead.  While the use of such imagery may ultimately allude to the literal resurrection of the dead (as, for example, the sign of Immanuel in chapter 7 ultimately alludes to the Messiah) I believe its immediate purpose here is to describe the release of the captive Jews from their captivity in Babylon, a symbolic resurrection from the dead.  Ezekiel’s famous vision of the valley of dry bones is a more obvious use of the image to describe the same historical event (Ezekiel 37).

Ezekiel’s vision also makes use of the image of wind in connection with the resurrection of the dead, and I wonder if its use there could give some insight into what Isaiah means here when he describes the Jews as giving birth to wind.  In Ezekiel’s vision, the wind represents the life-giving spirit of God.  In this chapter of Isaiah, it represents the vain efforts of humanity to produce life by its own power.  I suspect that Isaiah chose wind as his symbol because its associations with the life-giving spirit of God would give the symbol an additional layer of meaning here.  Literal wind is unsubstantial from a certain perspective and so is a good symbol of vain effort, but its associations with the life-giving spirit of God would also remind Isaiah’s readers that the Jews, in trying to redeem themselves, were trying to accomplish something that only God could do.  That is why their efforts were in vain.

I am less certain of the image of the dew in v. 19.  I believe it is another symbol of life and resurrection, but I am not exactly sure how it is supposed to work.  In other words, I am not sure what it is about dew that suggests life or resurrection.  Perhaps Isaiah means to allude to the manna.[2]

---

[1] I think the phrase links sections of the book together as a single unit, even if “that day” does not refer to same event (or “day”) in the various sections of the unit.  Of course, it may, in some (or all) cases actually refer to the same event, but I do not think one has to interpret it in this way.

[2] “[I]n the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp.  When the layer of dew lifted, there on the surface of the wilderness was a fine flaky substance, as fine as the frost on the ground” (Exodus 16:13-14).  “When the dew fell on the camp in the night, the manna would fall with it” (Numbers 11:9).

Isaiah 9 Notes

Chapter 9

Vs. 6-7: Since there was a first Immanuel (in the lifetime of Isaiah) and a second Immanuel (the Christ), I am inclined to believe that this prophecy also had two manifestations, one as a child in the lifetime of Isaiah to be a sign to the prophet’s contemporaries and a foreshadowing of the Christ, and another as Christ himself.  In fact, I am tempted to believe that this prophecy is actually yet another reference to Immanuel because of its similarity to the Immanuel prophecy: a child is born whose coming heralds the deliverance of the people of God from their enemies.  Of course, since I believe it has its ultimate fulfillment in Christ, I believe without doubt that it does refer to the second Immanuel, but there are problems that arise when I try to apply this prophecy to the first Immanuel as well.  If it does refer to the first Immanuel, and the first Immanuel is Isaiah’s child (see notes on 8:3) it seems odd that the child in this prophecy would be called a prince in the line of David with regal authority over the people of God.  The Oxford commentary suggests, “Hezekiah is the best candidate” (990).  That seems like a very reasonable conclusion because the child in this prophecy, while being a Judean king in the line of David, was also a great light in the darkness of Galilee (part of the Northern Kingdom, not Judah in the south) and a deliverer of the people who lived in that land.  Hezekiah’s religious reforms, which involved those living in the north as well as Judeans (2^nd Chronicles 30:1-9) could have fulfilled this part of the prophecy.  Nevertheless, if the child of this prophecy was Hezekiah, I don’t know how to reconcile that with the idea that he was synonymous with the first Immanuel (who I believe was the child of Isaiah, not a Davidic prince); therefore, Isaiah may have been referring to two separate individuals: his own child (Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, a.k.a. the first Immanuel), and Hezekiah.  It is worth noting that, while there are similarities between the child of this prophecy and the first Immanuel, the two children are not as closely identified with each other as the first Immanuel is with Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, so perhaps there is room to see them as separate individuals.  After all, the child in this prophecy does not function as a timeline, whereas Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and the first Immanuel do.

I wonder if the Jews considered this prophecy to be messianic fairly soon after Hezekiah’s reign.  If that was the case, it might indicate that they did not believe it was fulfilled (entirely) by Hezekiah’s life.

v. 8: This verse does obviously begin a new thought, distinct from that of vs. 6-7, and this new thought is tied together poetically through 10:4 by the refrain “for all this his anger has not turned away; his hand is stretched out still” (8:12, 17, 21, 10:4).  The Oxford commentary suggests that the appearance of this refrain in 5:25 should be linked to the four appearances here in chapters 9 and 10.  If 5:25 is the first of a five-part poem with this refrain, then this is a really uniquely structured poem.

Vs.18-19: Notice the symbiosis between the wrath of God and the self-destructiveness of the wicked.  Both are represented by the same metaphor: a consuming fire.  I believe Isaiah is describing how the free will of completely wicked people can be used by God as a tool for their own destruction.  See also 10:7 and 33:10-12.

Notes for Isaiah 8

Chapter 8

v. 3: Because of this verse, I believe that the first Immanuel must have been this child of Isaiah’s.  Even though the child’s name here is not identified specifically as “Immanuel,” his significance as a prophetic sign is so similar to Immanuel’s that I think it is reasonable to assume that the two names refer to the same child.  Immanuel and Maher-Schalal-Hash-Baz both serve as living timelines by which one could mark the destruction of Syria and Ephraim.  Before Immanuel (or Maher-Schalal-Hash-Baz) can tell the difference between right and wrong, the power of Syria and Ephraim will be vanquished.  (See notes on v. 4.)  It is not strange that somebody would have two names like this;  Peter was also called Simon, and Jesus himself is  named Immanuel in Matthew.

v. 4: Saying “before the child knows how to call ‘My father’ or ‘My mother’” might simply be idiomatic (rather than literal) and mean “before he knows the difference between right and wrong.”  I admit there does not seem to be much in the two phrases that would suggest this connection out of context, but the fact that this prophecy is so similar to the one concerning Immanuel in the previous chapter makes me inclined read the two prophecies as one.  (Besides, idiomatic expressions are often quite difficult to explain.  The natural connection between the two phrases above is certainly much closer than “break a leg” is to “have a good performance.”)  If, however, the phrase is meant to be taken literally, then it would have to refer (very roughly) to the age of two at the oldest.  If that is the case, and if this prophecy is synonymous with that of Immanuel, then Barnes’ idea that Immanuel’s age was two seems more credible. (See notes 7:14-16.)

v. 6: I believe the NRSV’s translation of this verse is the correct one (“melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah” rather than “rejoice in Rezin”) because the prophecy from v. 5 to v. 10 seems directed exclusively against Judah^[1], not against Judah and Ephraim, and the phrase “rejoice in Rezin” could only apply to Ephraim.

It is difficult for me to understand exactly whom the prophetic pronouncements in this chapter are for and against, but here is my best attempt.

Vs. 1-4 – The pronouncement is against Syria and Ephraim.

Vs. 5-8 –  The pronouncement is against Judah.^[2]

Vs. 9-10 – The pronouncement is against people in “far countries,” which I believe to be Syria and Ephraim.^[3]

Vs. 11-15 – The pronouncement is meant to comfort Isaiah and the faithful^[4] in the face of “this people.”  “This people” must be the wicked in “both houses” (v. 14) of Israel (i.e., Judah and Ephraim).  The pronouncement, therefore, is against the wicked in both Judah and Ephraim.

v. 12: “Conspiracy” might refer to…

1) Judah and Assyria against Syria and Ephraim

If this is the case, Isaiah might be saying, “Do not join in the conspiracy (plan) to unite with Assyria because you fear Syria and Ephraim.”  I do not believe this is correct, however, because it does not follow the parallelism of such constructions in Hebrew poetry.  I would expect the conspiracy to be synonymous with the fear in the second part of the verse.

2) Syria and Ephraim against Judah

If this is the case, Then Isaiah might be saying, “Do not whisper together with paranoia about the alliance between Syria and Ephraim, calling it a ‘conspiracy’ as though it were some potent menace.” This option seems most likely to me.

3) Isaiah against Ahaz

If this is the case, Isaiah might be dispelling rumors that he has been organizing a political conspiracy against Ahaz.  The audience, however, is the faithful of Judah, not Ahaz, so he if this is the case, Isaiah is not defending himself to the king.

4) Judeans (those opposed to an alliance with Assyria) against Ahaz

If this is the case, Isaiah might be saying, “Do not enter a conspiracy against Ahaz and ‘this people,’ nor fear their threats; God will soon deal with them in his own way.

Interestingly, the German translation uses the same term for “conspiracy” here as it does for “holy” in v. 13 (Verschwörung, “conspiracy,” in both places).    Perhaps Luther did this to reflect a paradoxical double meaning that he believed Isaiah intended for this verse and verse 13 to have when considered in the context of each other.  (The Hebrew terms in both verses are differentqesher=conspiracy, qadash=to sanctify.)

Isaiah does create a similar paradoxical juxtaposition in v. 14 by calling God both a sanctuary (for the faithful) and a rock of offense, or stumbling (for the unfaithful), so the paradox that Luther wanted to reveal here could be, “let God be your ‘conspirator’ and the one that you dread, not Assyria” or whoever the conspirators are in v. 12.

Isaiah does seem to enjoy using irony, and paradox, and double meanings in his work.  The Oxford commentary even sees double meaning in the name Immanuel as it is used in v. 8, as if at that point “God is with us” no longer meant “God is with us to deliver us” but “God is with us to punish us.” ^[5]

Along these same lines, think how pleased Isaiah was (or would have been) if he knew of the future meaning the name Immanuel would take on as a sign of the messiah.  In Christ, “God is with us” means not only that he is our deliverer, but also that he is literally among us, walking around.

v. 18: “Here am I” reminds me of “Here am I! Send me,” in 6:8.

---

^[1] I say it is directed against Judah because the waters of Shiloah, in Jerusalem, are juxtaposed with the waters of Assyria, which “pass through Judah” in v.8 and fill the breadth of the land of Immanuel.

 

^[2] Barnes believes the pronouncement is against Judah and Ephraim (and Syria) because he believes v. 6 should be translated “rejoice in Rezin.”

^[3] Barnes believes the far countries to be Assyria and its vassal nations (178-179).  I am not sure why he believes this, however, since Immanuel is specifically mentioned in v. 10, and Immanuel was meant to be a sign of deliverance from Syria and Ephraim.  These verses might be paraphrased to say, “You foreign powers that band together to destroy us (Judah) will be dismayed because God is with us.”

^[4] The German translation is written in 2^nd person plural.

^[5] I disagree with the commentary on this point because such an interpretation does not seem to fit the context.  But Isaiah’s love of paradox and irony do make the interpretation plausible.

Notes Isaiah 7

Chapter 7

First, I will set up the dates of events as I understand them and as they may be relevant to Isaiah’s prophecy in this chapter.

-Historians seem to be confused about dates for the reign of Ahaz.  Dr. Fortner believes that by the time Isaiah delivers this prophecy, Ahaz has already shut the temple up, but I don’t know how soon the king would have done this after his reign began. The Oxford commentary gives two possible starting dates for the reign of Ahaz: 743 B.C. or 735 B.C. (988).

-According to Dr. Fortner, the prophecy is delivered to Ahaz in 735 B.C.  Barnes believes it is delivered in the 2^nd year of Ahaz’s reign (162), but does not give a date.  The Oxford commentary believes the prophecy is delivered in 734 B.C. (987) the 2nd year of Ahaz’s reign, so all of these dates roughly correspond, unless Fortner believes Ahaz had been king for longer than a year or two by 735 B.C.

-According to the Oxford commentary, the reigns of Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel both end in the year 732 B.C. (988) which would be 2 years after the date it gives for the delivery of the prophecy.  Barnes roughly agrees with this, writing that Rezin was slain by the king of Assyria about one year after the delivery of the prophecy and that Pekah was assassinated within two years of the delivery of the prophecy (162).

-The universally acknowledged date for the collapse of the northern kingdom (a.k.a. Israel, a.k.a. Ephraim, a.k.a. Samaria) at the hands of Assyria is in 722 B.C., 13 years after the time Fortner suggests the prophecy was delivered, and 12 years after the Oxford commentary’s date.

v. 8b: The Oxford commentary believes this prophecy is a later addition to the original (988); I suppose it believes this because this prophecy does not seem to deal with the same time frame which the Immanuel prophecy does (65 years in the future as opposed to 2 or 12 years).  Both the Oxford commentary (988) and Barnes (153-154) acknowledge that this prophecy probably refers to later deportations from the northern kingdom made by Assyria about 65 years after its conquest of that land.

v. 11: When I first read this, I assumed the offer was genuine and that God, through Isaiah, was trying to accommodate Ahaz’s shaky faith by suggesting that he ask for a sign.  Dr. Fortner, however, believes this offer was purely rhetorical and only served as a prelude to Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy and his subsequent condemnation of Ahaz.  (Note a similar use of rhetoric and irony in 6:9.)  Fortner believes this because he believes Ahaz has already exasperated God and Isaiah at this point by closing down the temple.  I will have to find the dates for the closing of the temple. Just judging from the narrative itself, I do not believe the offer is rhetorical.

Assuming it is genuine, the offer seems to suggest that Ahaz could ask for something miraculous. (“The sky’s the limit” might be a good idiomatic translation for “either in the depth or in the height above.”)  Most signs like this, which are given to encourage people, are in fact miraculous.  Note, for example, the signs given to Gideon (Judges 6:36-40) or Moses (Exodus 4:1-8).  Therefore, I would expect that the sign God actually ended up showing Ahaz (the sign of Immanuel) was also be miraculous, although the sign of Immanuel would be a double-edged sword, not intended purely to encourage.  For Ahaz, that sign would demonstrate that God had truly  spoken through Isaiah and that all of Isaiah’s prophecy (including things like vs. 17-20 of this chapter) would come to pass.

Vs. 14-16: The Immanuel Prophecy.  I will first discuss the significance of this prophecy in its immediate context as a sign to Ahaz, and then I will discuss its ultimate fulfillment in Christ.

Old Testament context…

Apparently, the best translation of Isaiah’s Hebrew here is “Behold, the young woman will conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”  The word Hebrews had for virgin (i.e., someone who has not had sex) was bethula (Barnes 158), but the word here,alma (Barnes 158), does not have reference to whether or not the person has had sex; it only indicates that the person is of marriageable age and thus is sexually mature.  Because of this, I suppose it is likely that the sign given to Ahaz was not that an actual virgin would miraculously conceive (as Mary did) but that some young woman, probably one that they both knew, would soon conceive and bear a child.  Of course, I do not reject the idea that this could have been a virgin birth:  if the word alma is so general a term, then it could apply to someone who is also technically a bethula, just as “young woman” could designate a “virgin” as well as a young married woman.  Also, it is not a tenant of faith that Jesus’s birth was the only virgin birth any more than that Jesus’s resurrection was the onlyresurrection.  (See, for instance, 2^nd Kings 4: 8-37.) The Christian simply believes that these miraculous events did, in fact, happen to Christ and that they are infinitely more significant in his life because of who he was and what he came to do.  Still, because of the word Isaiah chose to use (alma), I don’t believe he meant for the nature of the birth itself to be the miraculous sign that would convict Ahaz.

So what then was miraculous about the sign if not the fact that the child would be born of a virgin?  I think it must simply have been the fact that Isaiah was predicting the future.^[1] That, in and of itself, is miraculous.  I think he was presenting Ahaz with a timeline of events that would happen in the future, and he was using the birth and life of the child Immanuel to mark the time.  The sign for Ahaz is that a young woman will have a child named Immanuel, and that while Immanuel is still a child (i.e., before he knows to choose good over evil and while he is still eating milk and honey) the power of the two kings whom Ahaz fears will be broken.  At first I wondered if this woman and child might be hypothetical, as if Isaiah were saying, “before the time it takes for a baby (any baby) to be conceived, born, and raised beyond childhood, the power of the two kings whom you fear will be broken,” but I do not believe the woman and child are hypothetical.  My primary reason for believing this is because Isaiah gave the child a name, Immanuel, which seems strange if he was speaking merely of a hypothetical child.    I believe the young woman was probably somebody that both Ahaz and Isaiah knew.  That way Ahaz would be aware of the birth of Immanuel and could personally witness the unfolding of Isaiah’s prophecy.^[2]

As far as I can tell, “milk and honey” is a significant phrase on a couple of levels.  First, while it is true that adults ate milk and honey, I believe these foods were identified with the diet of a child.  Note Paul in Hebrews 5:12-14 and 1^st Corinthians 3:1-3.  Note also Barnes’s numerous examples of this idea in the ancient world (160-161).  Besides, since Isaiah parallels the eating of milk and honey with the inability to choose between good and evil, I think it is obvious that he associates these foods with those of a child.  The other level of significance is that the phrase often suggests prosperity, as in “the land of milk and honey.”  (Note v. 22.)

Upon looking at the dates I have listed above, I see two lengths of time that would be consistent with the length of time Isaiah has in mind for his prophecy.  The first length of time is 2 years.  This would be the amount of time between the delivery of the prophecy and the deaths of both kings.  The other length of time is 12 years, which would be the amount of time between the delivery of the prophecy and the destruction of the northern kingdom.

I spoke with Dr. Fortner about the age at which ancient Hebrews would have considered a person capable of knowing right from wrong.  He said that, by the time of Jesus, 12 was the age of transition into adulthood; he pointed out, however, that it is uncertain how far back in history that belief existed, and was unwilling to make a direct connection between the 12 years of this prophecy and the fact that Jews of Jesus’s day (700 years later) considered a child capable of choosing right from wrong at the age of twelve.

I suppose one might also distinguish between the age at which a child could know to choose between right and wrong and the age at which he or she would be considered an adult (and fully responsible for such decisions).  Barnes believes the age Isaiah intends here is 2 years.  “A capability to determine, in some degree, between good and evil, or between right and wrong, is usually manifest when the child is two or three years of age” (Barnes 161).  (See also notes 8:4.)

Perhaps both lengths of time (2 and 12 years) could apply to this prophecy, but given the fact that 12 is the age of passage into adulthood by the time of Jesus, and the fact that this prophecy has its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus, and the fact that 12 years would not only include the major events of the first length of time (the deaths of Rezin and Pekah) but also the major event of the second (the fall of the northern kingdom) I believe twelve years is the length of time Isaiah intends.

New Testament context…

Based on the claims of the New Testament (Matthew 1:23) I believe this prophecy has its ultimate fulfillment in the birth of Jesus.  The first Immanuel, the child born in Isaiah’s day, was a type, a foreshadowing of the second Immanuel, just as (for example) Abraham’s intention to sacrifice Isaac was a foreshadowing of God’s actual sacrifice of his own son, Jesus.  In both cases (Abraham’s and the first Immanuel’s) it is possible that no human recognized the ultimate significance of the events in his own life as foreshadowings of the life of Christ, yet God could have revealed their significance for later generations to appreciate.

One has to consider that Matthew was well aware that this prophecy had an initial fulfillment.  The obvious reading of the passage is that Isaiah is speaking of events contemporary with himself and Ahaz, and that is how a first century Jew would have been taught to read it, so the application of the prophecy to the birth of Jesus by Matthew was not done naively, in ignorance of its original context (as a devout Christian might do in subsequent generations because he or she has only been taught its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus).

Whereas the birth of the first Immanuel might have been of a virgin, the birth of the second (Jesus) is undoubtedly of a virgin.  Apparently it is the Greek (Septuagint) translation of this passage which first asserts that the Hebrew word alma should be understood to signify someone who has not had sex.  The Greek word the Septuagint uses to translate alma is parthenos (Oxford 988) which designated a virgin.  I’m not sure why the Greek translators made this assertion, but here are a couple of possible explanations, assuming that their own free will (not divine intervention) led them to the assertion.

1) Perhaps the word alma developed a more specific connotation over time, and the Septuagint translators translated the word according to its more recently acquired connotation, being ignorant of its original significance.  (If this is the case, the Greek translators might have made a mistake.  Still, if alma did acquire a more specific connotation over time, it is interesting to consider what process(es) may have led to the change.  What if its use here in Isaiah to designate a young woman who gave birth while still a virgin was the event that inspired the new connotation?)

2) Perhaps the Greek speaking Jews were not ignorant of the word’s original significance but translated the word alma as virgin in spite of that knowledge because they thought (based on some other source of knowledge such as historical records we are not privy to) that the woman had been a virgin when she gave birth.

In either case, the Septuagint translators must have believed that the mother of the first Immanuel was a virgin when she gave birth.  Now the truth is that the mother of the first Immanuel may or may not have been a virgin when she gave birth to her first son, but Mary definitely was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.  We know this based on the actual story of Jesus’s birth provided in the Gospels, not based on the denotation or connotation of a single word as is the case with the first Immanuel.  Here is my explanation of what happened.

Matthew, being led by the Spirit of God, recognized that the Immanuel passage had its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus’s birth.  He was thus in agreement with the Septuagint’s translation as it applied to the second Immanuel.

Even if the Septuagint translators were incorrect to believe that the first Immanuel’s mother was a virgin, they were correct to use the term parthenos in a passage that would later signify Mary.  Perhaps they were as ignorant of their mistake in translation as they were of their new rendering’s future significance; nevertheless, I believe God used their translation to glorify the future birth of his son, either by actively leading them to choose parthenos, or by allowing them to select the word themselves.  If he actively led them to choose parthenos for alma, then he might have done so in any number of ways.  For instance, he could have led them to this choice over a period of centuries by slowly directing the connotation of alma among Jews to mean parthenos, or he could have led them to the choice at the moment of translation by showing them the passage’s future significance.

In any event, whether the Septuagint’s translation applies to the first Immanuel or not, it undoubtedly applies to the second.  If the translation was a mistake (as it applies to the mother of the first Immanuel) then I believe God used their mistake to glorify Jesus.  If the translation was the result of divine inspiration (and thus not a mistake) then I believe God actively led the translators to make their decision.  In this case, God would not have meant parthenos to apply to the mother of the first Immanuel (if, in fact, she was not a virgin) but to the mother of the second, although the translators may or may not have been aware of God’s reason for doing this.

When one considers that God (in concert with us, of course) is writing the story of humanity, it seems probable to me that he would use such a passage, even such a mistake (if that is what it is) to introduce a more wonderful twist to the story than we could have imagined beforehand.  From our perspective, God often seems to delight in the use of ironies and paradoxes that foil our expectations and teach us not to be wise in our own eyes.  Consider many of the sayings of Jesus, or for that matter, his actual life and death.  He did not turn out to be the type of Messiah the Jews were anticipating.  In fact, the very moment of his triumph, the moment he fulfilled his task as Messiah and said “It is finished (accomplished),” was the moment of his death – a moment which nobody who witnessed it at the time recognized as a moment of victory.  No doubt, many of those witnessing the crucifixion even thought they had made a mistake in believing that Jesus was the Messiah.

v. 22: Barnes considers the fact that those remaining in Judah and Jerusalem after the Assyrian invasion (v. 18) will be eating milk and honey is a sign of desolation (171) but this seems like an odd phrase to use for that purpose.  It was the same phrase used to describe the land as a place of plenty before the Israelites settled it.  I think Isaiah is saying that the land will go to pasture after Assyrian invasion, but that this will be a good thing for the few people left to live in it.  Consider a similar idea in 4:2-3.

---

^[1] Notice how often God uses his ability to predict/direct the future as an argument for his divinity.  See 44:7 and 46:10.