The Temporal Horizon of the Immanuel Oracle

[Ethan Bohr]

I'm wondering your guy's thoughts on whether or not Immanuel was meant to be Hezekiah (or whoever) imminently, or a distant Messianic figure.

Thanks!

[Jason Hare]

I'm wondering your guy's thoughts on whether or not Immanuel was meant to be Hezekiah imminently, or a distant Messianic figure

Thanks!

Everyone will have different opinions, which is why we take different positions on such questions. We try to keep the theological out of our posts as much as possible around here as a general rule. If we’re just looking at context, the name ʿImmā́nû ʾĒl appears twice in Isaiah—once in chapter 7 in connection with a prophecy about the fall of the two kings Rəṣîn king of Syria (Aram) and Péqaḥ king of Israel. The name is mentioned again in the next chapter in the context of the invasion of the king of Assyria, who wiped out the kingdoms of Israel and Syria and brought the survival of Judah into question. Since the name is mentioned twice in the context of the downfall of these two kings, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to look for its interpretation seven hundred years after the fall of those kings, whoever you attach it to historically.

That said, given that the gospel of Matthew quotes this verse in regard to the birth of Jesus, Christians are not really at liberty to dissolve all connection between the claim of a virgin birth and the prophecy of Isaiah in the passage about ʿImmā́nû ʾĒl.

[Ethan Bohr]

I'm wondering your guy's thoughts on whether or not Immanuel was meant to be Hezekiah imminently, or a distant Messianic figure

Thanks!

Everyone will have different opinions, which is why we take different positions on such questions. We try to keep the theological out of our posts as much as possible around here as a general rule. If we’re just looking at context, the name ʿImmā́nû ʾĒl appears twice in Isaiah—once in chapter 7 in connection with a prophecy about the fall of the two kings Rəṣîn king of Syria (Aram) and Péqaḥ king of Israel. The name is mentioned again in the next chapter in the context of the invasion of the king of Assyria, who wiped out the kingdoms of Israel and Syria and brought the survival of Judah into question. Since the name is mentioned twice in the context of the downfall of these two kings, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to look for its interpretation seven hundred years after the fall of those kings, whoever you attach it to historically.

That said, given that the gospel of Matthew quotes this verse in regard to the birth of Jesus, Christians are not really at liberty to dissolve all connection between the claim of a virgin birth and the prophecy of Isaiah in the passage about ʿImmā́nû ʾĒl.

Thanks Jason. I have trouble with the imminent interpretation, for four main reasons:

(1) In v. 10-11, the verbs are second person masculine singular in form, as well as two pronouns. V. 13 than switches to the second person plural, indicating that the sign is for the ENTIRE Davidic house, not just for Ahaz in particular (v. 13 thus alludes to v. 9b). This switch from the referent being Ahaz in v. 12 to the entire dynasty of the House of David in v. 13 after Ahaz refused the sign is key. Peter J. Gentry explains:

The quoted speech [in v. 13] begins as follows: “Hear O House of David, is it too trivial for you humans that weary my God?” The two verbs, “hear” (וּעמשׁ) and “you must weary” (וּאלתּ) are second person plural in form. The one pronoun employed with the infinitive “to weary” is also second person plural. Yahweh/Isaiah is no longer addressing Ahaz directly or specifically; he is addressing the entire dynasty of David: past, present, and future—the whole House of David. The pronoun in verse 14 is also second masculine plural in form. The sign in verse 11 was offered specifically to Ahaz. Ahaz declined. In spite of Ahaz’s response, Yahweh gave a sign. The sign he gave was for the entire family line of David and is therefore not at all tied to the time of Ahaz.

(Peter J. Gentry, "Isaiah 7:12-16—A Direct Prediction of a Distant Future Relative to Isaiah’s Time?," in The Mother of the Infant King [Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2020], pp. 188).

So Isa. 7's sign spans the entire history of the remaining Davidic family tree, something that will be clarified in Isa. 11:1. Verses 15-16a continue to speak in the third person masculine singular about the promised boy. Then, suddenly, v. 16b switches to second masculine singular in form, once again addressing specifically Ahaz and his days again, including what follows (v. 17-25). This analysis is supported by Isaiah 7:9b, which is also couched in the plural (which v. 13f. alludes to), in contrast to the preceding verses, and v. 10-12. Isa. 7:9b supports Gentry's interpretation because it echoes the Nathan oracle of 2 Samuel 7, which suggests a dynastic and potentially even Messianic application.

A counter could be raised by Isaiah 7:2:

וַיֻּגַּ֗ד לְבֵ֤ית דָּוִד֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר נָ֥חָה אֲרָ֖ם עַל־אֶפְרָ֑יִם וַיָּ֤נַע לְבָבוֹ֙ וּלְבַ֣ב עַמּ֔וֹ כְּנ֥וֹעַ עֲצֵי־יַ֖עַר מִפְּנֵי־רֽוּחַ׃

Here, the threat was explained to the "house of David," and Ahaz's heart is said to be shaken, and the heart his people. So one could argue that the "House of David' refers to Ahaz in v. 13ff. also, i.e., no switch in subject. But "House of David" in Isa. 7:2 is singular (as are the rest of the verbs and pronouns in this verse), unlike v. 13-14, which mysteriously switches from the singular as used in v. 10-12, unambiguously referring to Ahaz.

Ahaz is a natural referent in v. 2 because he was the current representative of the House of David at the time of the author's writing. The message given here to the House of David is in the present tense and concerns how Aram is putting pressure on Ephraim to attack Judah and Jerusalem, though. As mentioned above, it is also in the singular. In contrast, in v. 13f., we in plural form and we are dealing with a sign (see below) and with something that seems future. Before the boy is at the age of responsibility, the land (which Judah is at least a part of; see below) will be in exile (cf. Isa. 7:15-16). This content in itself suggests a future not in the time of Ahaz. The shift to the Second Person Plural facilitates this as part of the picture.

(2) The boy eating "curds and honey" seems to indicate destruction in the land resulting from exile. The negative use of the same terminology in 7:21-22 suggests this analysis is correct. Immanuel is to be born beyond the immediate future during the aftermath of destruction, for Isa. 7:15's curds and honey "signifies the aftermath of catastrophe and the disruption of a thriving agricultural society" (Etan Levine, “The Land of Milk and Honey,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 2000, pp. 57 [emphasis mine]). So construed through Gentry's and Levine's analysis, Immanuel eating curds and honey means that he will be born during a time of want and adversity in Israel. Combine this with v. 16, which says:

Before [Immanuel] knows to reject evil and to choose good the land which disgusts you because of its two kings will be abandoned.

Christophe Rico, in his book The Mother of the Infant King (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2020), pp. 144-147 argues that the v. should be translated this way, and I agree with it (note how it is most supported by the versions). "The text implies that the country would be emptied of its inhabitants" (ibid., 147). This broadens the horizon of this prophecy, for "the abandonment of the land can refer either to the campaign of Tiglath-Pileser in 732 or to the successive deportations which occurred in Samaria (722-21) and in Judah (597 and 586)" (ibid., 147). So Rico interprets this v. as speaking about one country 'the land (Judah) whose two kings you hate, that land will be abandoned.' This dramatically increases the temporal horizon of the oracle here.

But what about the two kings? Aren't they the kings of Aram and Ephriam? This would contradict the Hebrew grammar. Peter J. Gentry correctly argues:

The pronoun on the suffixed noun, “her kings” must refer to “land” since the pronoun is feminine singular . . . The two kings cannot be the King of Israel and the King of Aram . . . because one could not say of them, that “the land had two kings."

https://jbtsonline.org/wp-content/uploa ... icle-4.pdf

Gentry interprets the two kings as that of Northern Israel and Judah, which would expand the horizon of the oracle. One doesn't have to agree with Gentry's translation of v. 16 to recognize that the NRSV contradicts Hebrew grammar though. H.G.M. Williamson has "before whose two kings you are in dread," but asserts that "many (though by no means all) commentators" regard this part of the verse "to be a later addition" (Williamson, Isaiah 6-12, pp. 168). Williamson than gives reason for this being a later addition, one of which relates to Gentry's point:

It is incongruous to have one land mentioned with two kings . . . (ibid., 168).

Thus, in ibid., 167 Williamson translates the earliest text behind the current oracle in v. 16 as:

For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the land will be abandoned.

(3) The oracle of Isaiah 9 and 11 are clearly Messianic. But the "Son" of Isaiah 7 is the same "Son" in Isaiah 9, since both passages speak about a Davidic "בֵּ֚ן" ("Son") given lofty titles/names to be born as a sign of hope for the Davidic dynasty. By Isaiah expanding his prophecy in Isa. 7:14 to include the oracles of 9:1-7 and 11, Isaiah seems to have left nothing ambiguous regarding the Messianic identity of Immanuel IMO.

(4) Last point, it seems as though Immanuel was meant to be born of a young virgin. Christophe Rico in a recent monograph argues that ‘almāh means "young virgin," distinct from betûlāh, which refers to a virgin of any age. Many different languages from all different types of family languages have a distinction between ‘girl,' ‘virgin’ and ‘young virgin' (e.g., Arabic [fatâ’ah, bikr, ‘ażra’]; Catalan [noia, poncella, verge]; Russian [devuška, devica, devstevenica]), so it isn't hard to believe that the same set of distinctions existed in ancient Hebrew before ‘almāh eventually became a technical musical term later on. For the full case for "young virgin," see Rico's full book. Rico claims to make arguments regarding ‘almāh purely as a linguist.

A key point though in my opinion is that the birth of Immanuel is a "sign" (’ôt). While it is true that ’ôt doesn't necessarily denote anything miraculous, the context and use of ’ôt suggests this:

• The verb ’nissâ ("to test") occurs in the context of Isa. 7:14 (cf. v. 12). As Rico points out, when used in the context of a sign request, the verb nissâ occurs in only one other place in the Bible. That occurrence is found in the Midian episode with Gideon (see the use in Judg. 6:39), where the sign is miraculous. The use of the verb nissâ in the context of Isa. 7:14 thus suggests that the sign is meant to be miraculous as well. There are striking parallels to this story in Judges with the oracles of Isaiah 7-11, which strengthen this link with Isa. 7 and the Gideon episodes.
  
  Second, Mark D. Schutzius (II) argues in The Hebrew Word for 'sign' and Its Impact on Isaiah 7:14 (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015) that every miraculous use of the word ’ôt has YHWH specifically provide the sign. Instructive is Isa. 38:7 ("This is the sign to you from the Lord . . ."), where the sign is miraculous. Contrary to verses like this, uses of the word ’ôt that aren't miraculous do not come directly from YHWH. Rather, they describe God designating ordinary people, things, or events as "signs" (e.g., Gen. 1:14; 9:11-17; 17:11; Exod. 3:11-12; 12:7-13; Num. 2:2; 16:38; Isa. 8:18; Ezek. 14:8). If ’ôt in 7:14 did not denote a miracle, it would be far out of step with the typical usage of ’ôt where YHWH says he provided it.

Thoughts?

[Jason Hare]

I’m disinclined to give my thoughts. It’s best that we not get involved in this type of discussion. If it were just something touching on the Hebrew language, it would be fine. As regards “her kings,” since this is a question of Hebrew grammar, I will just say the following. The rest I will not respond to.

The prologue of the book of Ruth has the line וְשֵׁם שְׁנֵי־בָנָיו מַחְלוֹן וְכִלְיוֹן “and the name of his two sons [was] Maḥlôn and Kilyôn” (Ruth 1:2). Claiming that the land must be one and the same land is the same as claiming here that the two sons of ʾĔlîméleḵ were the same person because the word “name” is singular. When I was in high school Spanish, we were told that in Spanish you say that se pusieron el sombrero “they put the hat on,” using the word sombrero in the singular even though we shouldn’t really imagine them all sharing a single hat! The same is happening in this verse. No one reading this text as written would really come away thinking that it’s talking about one single country. That’s hyperliteralism and a bad reading of the text.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
What about 2 Kings 14:28 that says that a king of Israel took over Damascus and Hamath, so Israel ruled over Aram? Wouldn't Aram have two kings this way? 2 Kings 15:27 says Pekah ruled Israel for 20 years. 2 Kings 16:2 says Ahaz became king of Judah in the 17th year of Pekah's reign, and 2 Kings 16:5 says Rezin, the king of Aram and Pekah, king of Israel, went to take over Jerusalem during Ahaz' reign. Then Ahaz hired the king of Assyria to take over Damascus in 2 Kings 16:5-9.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
In Isaiah 7:14 G-d says that Ahaz can have a sign from G-d that could be miraculous, but he did not ask for one, so G-d gave him a sign anyway. It didn't have to be miraculous, even though G-d gave it to him, because it was a response to Ahaz' rejection of the miraculous sign. This situation is different, so the wording might be different.
Anyway, what about the non-miraculous signs in Jeremiah 44:29-30 and Isaiah 66:19? They seem to be from G-d.
I can't believe a scholar wrote a whole book about the word "sign" and did not consider that this prophecy is different because of how it was offered and refused. That is kind of depressing.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
Israel was called a land flowing with milk and honey many times, which was considered a good thing. There are a few verses in the Hebrew Bible that mention people eating curd (made from milk) and honey in good times, and not just bad times. Genesis 18:8, Deuteronomy 32:13-15, and 2 Samuel 17:29 sound like curd and honey were good things to eat.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
Can you give some examples of verses where it says a miraculous sign is "from the L-rd"?

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
What would be the point of giving a sign that a prophecy will take place if the sign partially or fully takes place after the prophecy? Wouldn't it make more sense to happen before the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16? Are there any other signs that take place after the prophecy in the Hebrew Bible?

[Jason Hare]

Isaiah 7:16–17 (MT):

¹⁶ כִּ֠י בְּטֶ֨רֶם יֵדַ֥ע הַנַּ֛עַר מָאֹ֥ס בָּרָ֖ע וּבָחֹ֣ר בַּטּ֑וֹב תֵּֽעָזֵ֤ב הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אַתָּ֣ה קָ֔ץ מִפְּנֵ֖י שְׁנֵ֥י מְלָכֶֽיהָ׃ ¹⁷ יָבִ֨יא יְהוָ֜ה עָלֶ֗יךָ וְעַֽל־עַמְּךָ֮ וְעַל־בֵּ֣ית אָבִיךָ֒ יָמִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־בָ֔אוּ לְמִיּ֥וֹם סוּר־אֶפְרַ֖יִם מֵעַ֣ל יְהוּדָ֑ה אֵ֖ת מֶ֥לֶךְ אַשּֽׁוּר׃

¹⁶ For before the child knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the land that you dread will be abandoned of its two kings. ¹⁷ Yahweh will bring upon you (sg.) and upon your people and upon your father’s house days that have not come since ʾEp̄ráyim’s turning away from Yəhûḏâ—the king of ʾAššûr.

This must be read as a unit. It cannot be broken and removed from its context. “Before the child knows to reject the bad and choose the good,... Yahweh will bring upon you (sg.)... the king of ʾAššûr” (that is, Assyria). I truly don’t know how you could read this in any other way. This connects הַנַּ֫עַר “the child” (i.e., עִמָּ֫נוּ אֵל ʿImmā́nû ʾĒl) with the invasion of Assyria. You can only miss it by breaking the verses apart and reading it without its context, which is destroying the text. “A text without its context is a pretext,” as they say.