Isaiah

[Resource Manager]

5:24 "Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despis­ed the word of the Holy One of Israel."

 

Here the denunciation and threat of judgment is in general and figurative terms. Very soon, in later chapters (and in later prophets: Jer. 5:14: Mal. 4:1) it becomes much more specific.

 

The figure of an irresistible wall of flame roaring with a loud crackle through a field of stubble and a pile of winnowed chaff is very telling. But the one word "consumeth", which really means "reduces to feebleness" (s.w. 13:7) tells the reader that this chaff is a people subject to the flame of divine anger (in most of its occurrences the word for "flame" means the divine fire).

 

Ezekiel's parable of the vine (15:4) insists that the worthless vine of Isaiah's parable (5:1-7) is fit for nothing but burning. And in his next chapter (6:6) the divine fire sanctifies the prophet to pronounce his nation's judgment by the destroying fire of God.

 

Hosea (9:16) and Amos (2:9) both echo the outcome of all this — God's people with a root reduced to rottenness and the glory of their fine flower no better than chaff or dust.

 

And all this because the law of their God is cast aside and the word of their Holy One is despised.

 

Yet not all the nation, for repeatedly Isaiah has comfort for the faithful few: "The remnant...shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward" (37:31).

 

John the Baptist — a great man for harnessing the message of Isaiah — warned his own generation that they too were under threat: "he (the Messiah) will throughly purge his floor...the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable" (Lk. 3:17).

 

And Jesus continued the warning when he laid a curse on the fig-tree nation so that it "dried up from the roots" (Mk. 11:20).

 

And at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit with visible "tongues of flame" (as here) devoured the stubble of Jewish hostility to the Holy One of God (Acts 2:3,4,17-19) and warned against sweeping judgment by "fire and vapour of smoke."

 

The very word "despised" (LXX: troubled) is picked up by Luke to describe how in the midst of promiscuous Athenian idolatry "Paul's spirit was stirred in him" to expose the futility of the empty religion from which these clever clever men were now commanded to repent.

[Resource Manager]

5:25 "Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."

 

There are some indications of a dislocation in Isaiah's text here. The refrain at the end of this verse comes four times over at 9:12,17,21; 10:4. And the Woe at 10:1.2 would suitably belong here along with the other six Woes in chapter 5. Certainly there would seem to be greater tidiness if 5:25-30 were transferred to follow 10:4, and 10:1,2 transferred to this place. But this is conjectural, and for that reason the words will be dealt with in the order of the familiar text.

 

The detail here about the hills trembling is probably an echo of Uzziah's earthquake, which had most likely happened by this time and was being cited as a warning of judgment to come. Specific reference is to the temple mount. Josephus asserts that it was on one of the Feasts of the Lord that Uzziah made his wilful attempt to assume the role of high priest. At the crucial moment "a great earthquake shook the ground, and a rent was made in the temple, and the bright rays of the sun (the divine Glory?)...fell upon the king's face, insomuch that the leprosy seized upon him immediately" (Ant. 9.10.4).

 

The sinister phrase: "carcases torn in the streets" points to something worse than Uzziah's earthquake. What that will be is intimated by the use in the Apocalypse of the same figure (11:8). There the Two Witnesses, clearly symbolic of the faithful remnant in Israel in the Last Days, are ravaged by the Beast and left lying in the street of "the great city where their Lord was crucified" (see "Rev," H.A.W. ch.25).

[Resource Manager]

5:26-29 "And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly: None shall be weary nor stumble among them; none shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken: Whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent, their horses' hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind: Their roaring shall be like a lion, they shall roar like young lions: yea, they shall roar, and lay hold of the prey, and shall carry it away safe, and none shall deliver it."

 

First, a reminder that the proper place for these verses may be, more correctly, after the series of ominous warnings of the Lord's hand still outstretched in judgment (cp. Jer. 21:5), that is, after 10:4.

 

The setting-up of an ensign for the Gentiles is to rally them, a considerable confederacy of sycophant supporters (Ps.83), to a suitable point from which to launch their attack on the city of God. But the Hebrew verbs and pronouns are singular — "he...him," the reference being to Sennacherib, the mighty monarch directing the campaign.

 

They come, at the "hiss" or "whistle" of the Almighty, with astonishing efficiency, "with speed swiftly" — a fitting response to the mocking challenge thrown at the prophet of the Lord by unbelieving contemporaries: "Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it" (v.19). Indeed, they did!

 

Attention has been drawn to the remarkable fact that although these verses provide the first vivid picture of Assyrian invasion, before ever it happened, not a few of the phrases seem to be specially selected to suggest angels of the Lord in action, invisibly in control of the entire ambitious project from start to finish: None weary or stumbling; they neither slumber nor sleep (cp. Ps. 121:4); and sharp arrows (Dt. 32:23), and chariot wheels like a whirlwind (cp. Ps. 83:13; Nah. 1:3; Ez. 10:13) all strongly suggest the cherubim chariots of God; the roaring like a lion (Jl. 3:16; Hos. 5:14; 11:10), and none able to deliver (Ps. 50:22; Dt. 32:39) alike imply irresistible divine power at work.

 

By and by Isaiah is to make explicit affirmation that this Assyrian onslaught is a veritable act of God: "The Lord bringeth up upon them (Israel) the waters of the River...even the king of Assyria and all his glory" (8:7). Sennacherib is "the rod of mine anger...against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge" (10:5,6); he is also "the axe which boasts itself against him (the Lord) that heweth therewith" (10:15).

 

Yet a further feature of these vivid verses is the degree of coincidence with Joel's even more vivid prophecy of the same exciting crisis: flame and stubble (1:19; 2:3,5), burning "with speed speedily" (3:4); none of the attackers "weary or stumbling" (2:6-8); the thunder of horses' hoofs and of wheels like a whirlwind (2:4,5); the roaring like a lion (3:16), and in that day (2:1) darkness in the heavens (2:2,10; 3:15) — all these details serve to unify Isaiah and his contemporary prophets.

 

Later, it should be possible to develop the idea that the Sennacherib invasion was a prototype of the last great invasion of God's Land, as foretold in Ezekiel 38 and Psalm 2. For the present, then, let these verses be read in parallel with those Scriptures, and there is here, truly, a picture of an overwhelming force coming up "like a cloud to cover the Land." The outcome also proves to be the same.

[Resource Manager]

5:30 "And in that day they shall roar against them like the roaring of the sea: and if one look unto the land, behold darkness and sorrow, and the light is darkened in the heavens thereof."

 

It is instructive here to note the double figure of speech. In verse 29 the aggression of the invaders is like the roar of lions. Here it is like the roar of the sea. So also in Revelation (10:3; 1:15), where the mighty heavenly Voice is described by both similes. It is, then, unwise to read into "many waters" the idea of many nations (cp. Ps. 18:11,16).

 

Here the climax of retribution is one of unrelieved gloom, but in later prophecies of the same crisis there is reassurance for the Lord's faithful (8:14; 17:6; 25:4; 26:20,21).

 

The emphasis on blackness and darkness is difficult to understand in a literal sense, so far as the primary reference is concerned, but in other places (13:10; 24:23) there is a suggestion of eclipse or mighty storm. But the frequent use of this kind of language in prophecies of the last days suggests that one of the outstanding phenomena at the time of the Lord's coming will be a day of unnatural darkness comparable to the day of the crucifixion, and that these places in Isaiah should be read with reference to it.

 

Joel describes the day of the Lord as "a day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness" (2:2,10; 3:15). Zechariah has similar but more mysterious language: "And it shall come to pass in that day that the light shall not be clear nor dark" (14:6) — does this mean a day of darkness with a manifestation of divine light? The Olivet prophecy, in a passage which certainly refers to the Second Coming, describes "the sun darkened, and the moon not giving its light" (Mt. 24:29). Compare also: Am. 5:18,20; 8:9; Zeph. 1:14-17.

 

In the LXX, the word "sorrow" becomes aporia, perplexity — the very word so effectively used by Jesus in his Olivet prophecy: "on the earth distress caused by Gentiles, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring" (Lk. 21:25). Such details encourage the student to look for a further fulfilment of Isaiah's grim passages.

[Resource Manager]

Chapter 6

 

6:1 "In the year that King Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."

 

Isaiah wrote a chronicle of the reign and achievements of Uzziah, and doubtless much of the record in 2 Chronicles 26 was abstracted from that (see v.22 there).

 

Here he does not say: "In the first year of Jotham...," because both Jotham and Ahaz reigned as regents whilst Uzziah the leper was still alive. But: "In the year that king Ahaz died" (14:28) is appropriate because his regency became kingship. The prophet could have written concerning much of his long prophecy: "In the year that king Hezekiah was going to die, but didn't." In the context of what Isaiah now writes, there is much allusiveness to the startling events which put an effective end to the reign of proud Uzziah:

 

1. It is God who is King (v.5; Ps. 48:2), not Uzziah.
    
   
2. And He also is, somewhat remarkably, described as priest, for the word "train" means a high-priest's garment (Ex. 28:33,34); this is appropriate to His later manifestation in Christ who comes "in the glory of his Father" (Mt. 16:27), and is himself described as "a priest upon his throne" (Zech. 6:13).
    
   
3. ln contrast to the unseemly self-exaltation of Uzziah, the Lord is "high and lifted up". These are the very words that are used about Christ (Is. 52:13; Jn. 12:38-41,32). But the same words also tell of the utter humiliation of all human pomp that is "high and lifted up" (s.w.w. 2:11,13,14).
    
   
4. There is great earthquake also, for "the posts of the (temple) door are moved at the voice of him that cried," precisely as earthquake rocked and split the temple (according to Josephus) at the time of Uzziah's impious presumption. Amos (9:1) has the same description.
    
   
5. "And the House was filled with smoke," that is, of incense (note the allusion to the altar of incense in verse 6). This too is a reminiscence of Uzziah's attempt to fill the role of priest, burning incense before the Lord (2 Chr. 26:16).
    
   
6. Isaiah's description of himself as "a man of unclean lips," in other words a leper (Lev. 13:45), is a reminder of the stroke of leprosy very deservedly put upon Uzziah. Isaiah was himself a priest, surely, or he would not have been in the Holy Place to witness this awe-inspiring vision. Nevertheless he confessed his un­worthiness and this saved him from the death which mortal men die in the presence of the Glory of the Lord (Lev. 16:13).

[Resource Manager]

In passing, it is worthwhile to note how many of the prophets were priests: Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Samuel, Elijah, Habakkuk, Zechariah, Malachi, Zacharias and John the Baptist. There were probably others.

 

What is the implication behind the word "also"? — "I saw also — besides other visions revealed to me (2:1)", or "I also — like other prophets, like Amos (9:1) and Micaiah (1 Kgs. 22:19) and David (Ps. 18:6ff) — saw the vision of heavenly glory"? It is important to avoid the assumption that what Isaiah saw was a vision of Christ glorified. This is based on a mis-reading of John 12:41: "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. What Isaiah saw was the glory of the Father, that glory which came to be shared by His Son (Dan. 7:13) and with which he will be endowed when he comes again (Mt. 16:27; 24:30).

 

But certainly in this context Isaiah "spake of him," for there is the authority of Jesus himself for reading Isaiah 6 as a prophecy with a later Messianic fulfilment. Isaiah has a later impressive allusion to this Shekinah vision: "Thus saith the high and lofty One, that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also (Isaiah!) that is of a contrite and humble spirit..." (57:15; compare here 2 Cor. 10:5 sww.).

 

There is probably a designed ambiguity about the word "lifted up", for this reading depends on the Massoretic pointing. It could just as easily, and by the tiniest vowel adjustment, read: "bearing (sin)", which is the very sense in which Jesus used it when he spoke of the Son of man being "lifted up" (Jn. 12:34).

 

May it be assumed that, accompanying the vision, Isaiah also saw a mighty assembly of angels such as Micaiah and John saw (1 Kgs. 22:19; Rev. 4:1,8; 5:11)? This seems right.

 

For "his train" LXX and other versions read "his glory filled the temple." But this is precisely what happened at the dedication of both Tabernacle and Temple (Ex. 40:34,35; 1 Kgs. 8:10,11). So here is the implication of a New Temple — but not a building; instead, the whole earth (Land?) is to be filled with the glory of the Lord (as Nu. 14:21 declares). So here is yet another pointer to a greater and more wondrous fulfilment in Messiah's day.

 

In the first century those who came to appreciate the glory of God in Jesus of Nazareth would recall that priests dedicated to fulfilling the procedures of the Law of Moses were driven out of the Sanctuary by the overpowering presence of the Shekinah Glory!

[Resource Manager]

6:2,3 "Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory."

 

Here it is necessary, first, to give some care to identification of the seraphim. Are these divine beings angels? Are they the same as cherubim?

 

First, then, let it be said that the cherubim are not angels, but are symbols associated with angelic activity and particularly with the chariot of the Lord. It is not for nothing that the rabbis gave Ezekiel ch.1 the title Merkavah. the Chariot (note that that chapter takes the horses of Zech. 6 and Rev. 6 for granted).

 

Like the cherubim of Rev. 4:6,8, the seraphim have six wings (why only four in Ez. 1:6 has never been explained), and they have the same hymn of praise.

 

It is possible that what Isaiah saw were cherubim, but that he calls them seraphim because their characteristic cherub faces were covered. But the Biblical associa­tions of the word, and of its corresponding verb, are rather special.

 

The noun describes the fiery flying serpents of the wilderness (Num. 21:6,8; Is. 30:6; Dt. 8:15), and — at one step removed — the ruthless Assyrian invader (Is. 14:29). The verb very often describes the refining, cleansing fire of God, especially in judgment or retribution. On this, compare how the fire of God features in the Apocalypse. Since the Hebrew language has no less than fourteen words for "burn," it is important to emphasize this specialized meaning.

 

Thus one is led to consider particular reference to God's angels of evil, those ministering spirits to whom is committed the control of all aspects of evil circumstance, as men see it — those experiences which certainly happen by the will of God but which men of finite judgement would fain do without. Perhaps Psalm 104:4 makes a distinction between these two types of angel: "Who maketh his angels spirits, his ministers a flaming fire." And it may be that the seraphim covered their faces in the divine presence because their sphere of operation is the somewhat negative aspect of "evil" which this vision is specially related to.

 

Kay, easily the finest of all commentators on Isaiah, evidently leaned to this idea. After speaking of the seraphim as "God's instruments inflicting the righteous penalty of sin," he adds: "he whose ministers they were, was in the midst of them, 'high and lifted up', to heal all who looked to him in faith."

 

It is interesting to note that these ideas may have been carried (by Israelite captives?) to other nations. At Persepolis (Persia) and Gozan (Assyria) human figures with six wings have been found; and the very word seraph has been en­countered in Egyptian religious inscriptions.

[Resource Manager]

The picture presented by Isaiah's words is not easy to grasp. The Hebrew means "above it (the temple) or "above Him". But LXX reads "round about Him", and this is certainly the idea in Micaiah's vision of the council in heaven (1 Kgs. 22:19) and in John's apocalyptic vision (Rev. 4:6). There the six-winged living creatures are "in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne." This is mysterious until it is realised that the ark of the covenant, with its cherub figures, was regarded as God's footstool (1 Chr. 28:2). But the ark was shrouded by the veil, with its inwrought cherubim, and by curtains every panel of which had the same kind of figure. Thus the language of Revelation 4 is literal and exact.

 

If indeed these seraphim were associated with God's dispensation of evil, there is some appropriateness in their faces being covered, for if it had not been for the Fall in Eden their grim work would not be necessary. Again, there is this relevant fact that at the very time when Isaiah saw this vision, the original brazen serpent (seraph) was the centre of idolatrous worship. For this reason seraphim might well hide their faces. Soon it was to be called Nehushtan, "that brass thing," (2 Kgs. 18:4), or maybe "Second Serpent" (Gen.3).

 

But also the feet of the seraphim were covered. Was this to suggest that temporarily they were at rest from their adverse activity (contrast Dan. 10:6 and Rev. 1:15, where imminent action is implied).

 

However, the seraphim flew, and yet Isaiah did not see them disappear. So perhaps there is here a suggestion of hovering in readiness to do the will of the Almighty — compare the protective hovering of angels at the first Passover (Ex. 12:13; pasach means 'to hover or flutter').

 

One of these seraphim cried to another, apparently reminding him that their work was not for themselves but for the glory of God, even though it be concerned primarily with a ministry of evil (as Greek heteros, LXX, might well imply).

 

So: "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts", this Lord of hosts of angels. Even when bringing hard experience and discipline on His people, even then He is holy. But why the triple form when there are four of these divine creatures offering this hymn of praise? Probably with reference to their faces and their feet and their flying — three different phases of their service. Or, four seraphim each crying "Holy, holy, holy" glorifying God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. "In His temple doth every one speak of His glory" (Ps 29:9) — even as they bring judgment these heavenly servants proclaim the glory of their heavenly Master. Even when this work is afoot, "the whole earth is full of His glory." But regarding the primary reference of this Scripture it is probably correct to read: "the whole Land (of Israel)", that is, both northern and southern kingdoms, even though at this very time an irresistible Assyrian invasion of the north was preparing, or may have already begun.

 

By and by it will be seen that there is yet further reference here to the glory of Christ.

[Resource Manager]

6:4 "And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke."

 

Isaiah is to be pictured as standing in the Holy Place. The structure which he saw rocking on its foundation was that from which the veil hung. The veil itself took up three-fifths of the 20 cubit space between the walls, and at each side of it there was a 4 cubit door of olive wood (1 Kgs. 6:31,32).

 

It was an earthquake like that which happened at the moment of king Uzziah's sacrilegious presumption (2 Chr. 26:16), and may have been the shattering act of God which Isaiah himself had already foretold (ch.2). It is tempting to read the details of Amos 9:1 with reference to the same occasion: "I saw the Lord standing upon (Heb. a/,beside) the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake..." If this was the same as that which Isaiah experienced, then the two prophets were in the Holy Place together at the time of the morning or evening sacrifice.

 

The mention of smoke here is really in contrast with the incense of Uzziah, for, combined with earthquake, it signifies the wrath of God against His people: "Then the earth shook and trembled: the foundations also of the hills were moved and shaken, because he was wroth. There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured" (Ps. 18:7,8. cp. Ex. 19:18; Dt. 29:20).

 

There is a close parallel to all this in Rev. 15,16, where there are cherubim and a hymn to the praise of God; the temple is filled with smoke, and the wrath of God is expressed in a violent earthquake (15:1,3,7,8; 16:18,19). It is quite inadequate to recognize these similarities and not go a step further in order to recognize also that as Isaiah 6 had a fulfilment concerning the Land of Israel in the prophet's day and again in the time of Christ, so with the Vials and their prelude.

[Resource Manager]

6:5 "Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts."

 

What a contrast with the Isaiah of the earlier utterances! He had pronounced six (seven?) vigorous Woes against the spiritual decay of his nation (ch.5), and had added to one denunciation the prayer: "therefore forgive them not" (2:9). But now, in the presence of divine Glory, he was made aware of his own utter worthlessness — and this on two counts: his own uncleanness before God, and his association with a nation even worse. Like Daniel (ch.9) and Nehemiah (1:6,7) and many other men of God, he had no disposition to dissociate himself from those whom he had been inspired to denounce.

 

Paul's "O wretched man that I am!" (Rom. 7:24) echoes LXX at this place, and thus encourages the idea that by "the body of this death" he meant his own innate perversion and propensity to evil that belongs to all the race, the universal sin-disease, the law in his members warring against the law of his mind.

 

Again, LXX establishes the link between Isaiah's "I am undone" and the humiliation of Peter's Pentecost crowd when "they were pricked in their heart" (Acts 2:37).

 

Unclean lips" is no allusion to unworthy speech (though indeed it might well have been: 5:19,20), but to moral leprosy — Isaiah and people alike stricken with the in­curable sin-disease. The leper was commanded to go with rent clothes, and head bare, and lip covered, as he made his warning cry: "Unclean, unclean!"

 

(Lev. 13:45). There is too an impressive shape about the Hebrew sentences, for with special

emphasis self is pushed to the very end.

 

When Uzziah was stricken with leprosy in the Holy Place (where Isaiah now was), the priests bustled him out of the Sanctuary, and by their man-handling of him shared his defilement (2 Chr. 26:20), but how the mere sight of the King, the Lord of hosts, the King of Glory (Ps. 24:10) was sufficient to stamp on Isaiah's mind his own desperate need of cleansing.

 

His confession of this need was the first necessary step: "God, be propitiated to me, the sinner" (Lk. 18:13). Such a prayer of understanding has its answer: "This man went down to his house justified."

 

The time was soon to come when, with overpowering majesty, the Glory of the Lord would appear with even more shattering effect to the sinners and hypocrites in Zion, driving them to the confession "Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" (33:14).

 

But, happily, there is also to be a time when the Lord "will turn to the people (Israel) a pure lip (not a common or universal language, but a cleansing of their unclean lips) that they may all call upon the name of the Lord" (Zeph. 3:9).

[Resource Manager]

6:6,7 "Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged."

 

There was no hope that Isaiah might in some way make himself "clean" before God, for "leprosy" was the incurable disease. So it must be done for him. And it was.

 

But not by the seraph. If holy fire was to be the cleansing agent, could not this "fiery one" fulfil Isaiah's need through contact with himself? To this the Bible's insistent answer is No! the Redeemer of a fallen race must be himself one of the same family: "Verily he taketh not on him the nature of angels...it behoved him (he ought) to be made like unto his brethren..." (Heb. 2:16,17).

 

So, in symbol, a live coal from the altar of burnt offering, where there has been sacrifice of complete self-consecration, now achieves what would otherwise be impossible. The disciple of unclean lips finds "remission of sins" as he drinks from a cup sanctified by the blood of Christ (Mt. 26:28).

 

But, even so, an angelic agency was and is necessary in this all-important divine operation. They are "all ministering spirits (yes, even God's angels of evil are this!), sent forth to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb. 1:14). How often has this been perceptibly true in the experience of many who found their way into redemption by "accident"!

 

The live coal of divine fire touching the prophet's lips made him fit to continue in the heavenly Presence. The repetition (in v.7) emphasizes that it was only because of this. "He toucheth the hills (with divine fire), and they smoke" (Ps. 104:32). And the same was true of Isaiah, as the rest of this message abundantly proves.

 

One is tempted to believe that when Jeremiah's mouth was touched (1:9) it was similarly by a live coal from off the altar.

 

Thus Isaiah's iniquity was taken away. Devout and willing servant that he was, he nevertheless had iniquity which now was "turned aside", for "every thing that may abide the fire...shall be clean" (Num. 31:23).

 

Thus "his sin was purged." The verb here is the only hint in this unusual Scripture to suggest that it may have happened on the Day of Atonement. But if so, what a remarkable emphasis that some other better covering of sin was necessary than what that most impressive ritual of the Law provided.

[Resource Manager]

6:8 "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me."

 

There is an echo here of Micaiah's account of a council in heaven (1 Kgs. 22:20). Elsewhere, too, there are hints enough of this idea (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; and also Ps. 89:7; Zech. 14:5, where 'saints' means God's immortal holy ones), so it is not to be written off as poetic imagery. The plural pronoun "us" is not to be juggled with. This is no plural majesty. Yet there is hardly a commentator who can resist the temptation to make a far-flung illogical inference about the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

It is remarkable that with such limitless heavenly resources at hand (Dt. 33:2; Ps. 68:17; Dan. 7:10; Rev. 5:11), the Almighty should look for an effective human messenger and should have to look for such!

 

Isaiah's reaction to this devastatingly awe-inspiring experience might well have been a shrinking away into silent reluctance. But instead, the declaration of sins forgiven impelled him to a willingness to go as the Lord's messenger, although not knowing whither he went. And so also it should be with all others who experience a like blessing. Can it be that if there were a clearer conviction of forgiveness there would be a greater multitude of zealous witnesses for the Truth of God?

 

There remains to be settled the tricky question about this heavenly vision: Does it describe Isaiah's first commission as a prophet (see on Jer. 1:6-8 in "Of whom the world was not worthy"), and if so why does it appear here, instead of preceding chapter 1? Or is it to be read as a renewed charge, and if so what was there special­ly important about 6:9-13 (by contrast with ch. 1-5) to warrant this nearly unique experience?

 

In view of the signs of dislocation in these early chapters, one is inclined to the first of these explanations. Can it be taken as a touch of modesty on Isaiah's part that he tucks this remarkable passage in here instead of putting it where it really belongs, at the very beginning of this great work?

[Resource Manager]

6:9,10 "And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."

 

Sent to his wayward nation, the bearer of a forbidding message, Isaiah is not only prophet but also apostle. The reader is not told how he fulfilled his commission. Apart from a few details in chapters 7,8 and 39 there is practically nothing to tell how he went about it.

 

The sequence of ideas up to this point is impressive:

 

v.5: The vision of divine glory takes all the spirit out of him: "I am undone."

v.5: There is confession of utter unworthiness.

v.7: Confession leads to cleansing..

v.8: The glad response of a forgiven sinner: "Here am I; send me."

v.9: The commission: "Go, tell this people."

 

"This people", a phrase with a scornful or indignant ring about it, had been used to describe Israel in the wilderness — at the episode of the golden calf and the people's murmuring about their daily manna; and Isaiah was to use it often enough in censure of this nation's ungodly spirit (8:6,11,12; 9:16; 28:11,14; 29:13,14).

 

It is fashionable in some quarters to water down the astringent quality of the message Isaiah had to impart, by suggesting that there was no determinism, no act of God in stopping ears, blinding eyes, and making minds impervious to truth. Instead, so they say, the language here is simply an idiomatic way of declaring beforehand what God knew was bound to be the outcome of the trend into apostasy.

 

It is true that in some places this is an appropriate approach. For example, Jeremiah was appointed "to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant" (1:10), yet he did none of these things; he was God's mouthpiece declaring that these events would happen (cp. also Hos. 6:5).

 

But here the details are too specific to allow for such an idiomatic meaning. Here the words mean strictly what they say:

 

1. Where this passage is quoted in John 12, there is the introductory explanation: "Therefore they were not able to believe because again Isaiah said..."
    
   
2. "Make the heart of this people fat... " means just that. The Hebrew Hiphil carries the idea: "Cause their heart to be fat..."
    
   
3. "Lest they see with their eyes..." etc. is clearly a divine prevention, not just a foretelling of what is bound to happen.
    
   
4. The use Jesus made of these words has the same austere meaning: "Whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables..." (Mt. 13:12-15, where Isaiah's words follow immediately). The Lord chose parables as a medium of instruction because, whilst wonderfully enlightening to those who had the valve of their will set the right way, to the critical and unwilling the parables intensified their spiritual blindness.
    
   
5. Deuteronomy 29:4 is revealing: "Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." There is an enlightenment which God may impart, or may withhold (as here), or may even prevent (as in Isaiah 6).

 

Such mysteries are not readily understood. Paul includes this unbelief of Israel as one of the unsearchable judgments of God, one of His ways which are past finding out (Rom. 11:32,33).

[Resource Manager]

It may be taken as certain that this judicial blindness came on Isaiah's contemporaries as a well-deserved judgment, leading on to the tribulation of the Assyrian invasion. But no less than five citations of these words, on three separate occasions (Mt. 13:14,15=Mk. 4:12=Lk. 8:10; Jn. 12:39,40; Acts 28:25-27) establish that the words are also to be read as a prophecy of the blindness of Israel concerning the gospel, in the first century and ever since.

 

"Understand with their heart and turn, and be healed" is clearly alluded to by Paul in the same context: "But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it (their heart) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away" (2 Cor. 3:15,16). Paul was alluding to the synagogue custom of having a veil drawn across the Testimony, the Ten Words, when the reading of the Law is in progress.

 

There are a few details about the wording of this part of the prophecy worth commenting on further:

 

1. In Matthew 13, the quotation follows LXX version precisely.
    
   
2. For "perceive not", LXX uses a different word for "see", a word which is often used for a divinely-given insight, a vision.
    
   
3. In the Hebrew text the pronouns are singular: "his eyes...his ears...etc." with reference to Israel, the nation.
    
   
4. In the phrase: "shut their eyes," the verb is unusual. Here some commentators (with inadequate reason?) read "daub, anoint". But the essential idea is "delight" i.e. they comfort their eyes by shutting them against the blaze of heavenly Glory. (No essential contradiction here with a,e, above).
    
   
5. "Understand with their heart" is, of course, not to be taken literally. The very common Hebrew idiom puts "heart" for "mind". The emphasis is on man's thinking, not on his emotions. Bible students need to remember this, for the usage (and the error!) is common in both Old and New Testament.
    
   
6. LXX and Mt. 13:15 (Gk) follow a sequence of subjunctives with an indicative: "and I will heal them." It is a firm promise.
    
   
7. In Mk. 4:12 the same phrase reads: "and their sins should be forgiven them." This is actually the Targum paraphrase, adopted here by Jesus as an excellent equivalent of the essential meaning of the Hebrew.
    
   
8. The ABCCBA structure of verse 10 is worth noting: "heart...ears...eyes... eyes...ears...heart."

[Resource Manager]

6:11,12 "Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land."

 

What did Isaiah's anxious enquiry signify? On the face of it, he meant: "Lord, how long do I go on proclaiming this austere message?" — until at least condign punishment falls on the nation. But it is remarkable that all other examples in the prophets of "How long — ?" seem to mean: 'How long will your judgment last when it comes?' (cp. Jer. 12:4; Dan. 12:6; Zech. 1:12; Ps. 90:13; Rev. 6:10).

 

The desolation of the northern kingdom came in two main stages. Zebulun and Naphtali were devastated by Tiglath-pileser III, the Hitler of the ancient world, and Samaria was destroyed by Shalmanezer V and Sargon II (the former of these died during the campaign). But Isaiah's message was concerned primarily with Judah, and their turn came in 701 B.C. when the entire country, except Jerusalem itself (1:8), was swamped by the tide of invasion under Sennacherib. In his inscription that evil heart boasted of capturing 46 fortresses, and of dragging away into captivity no less than 200,000 prisoners, a number vastly in excess of those accounted for a century later by the inroads of Nebuchadnezzar.

 

This desolation is an inescapable feature of the rest of Isaiah's prophecy; but, happily, in the second half of his prophecy, so also is the utterly unexpected return home of this wretched captivity.

 

This deportation of populations (5:13) was an instrument of empire first invented by Tiglath-pileser (and copied by Hitler). These stricken people of Israel were removed "far away" to Babylon which the Assyrians had lately conquered. But there was also "a great forsaking in the midst of the land" by refugees who fled in all directions, and especially to Egypt (e.g. 19:18). But here LXX reads: "and those places having been forsaken shall be multiplied" (the Hebrew text might just possibly mean this). This, if correct, is an anticipation of the startling restoration which ensued after the cataclysmic destruction of Sennacherib's army.

 

But though the invaders did these evil things with gusto, here the emphasis is an "act of God" — "the Lord removed men far away" (and this because "they removed their heart far from him"; 29:13). The Assyrian was but a tool in God's hand (8:7; 10:5,6). This is a philosophy of history of which men in their cleverness — and especially modern men — have no grasp at all.

[Resource Manager]

6:13 "But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof."

 

The Hebrew of this verse is unpleasantly difficult, as the AV. italics bear witness. But the main idea is clear enough. As Israel's tithe was "holy to the Lord" (Lev. 27:32), so there was to continue in the nation a remnant who were truly His, and from the impending time of tribulation "they shall return" — Shear-jashub. The idea is repeated with a change of figure: Israel, looking like a prosperous well-established tree, will be burnt up, yet nevertheless even if the stump be cut down (NIV), survival will still be possible, for "there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again ... through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant" (Job 14:7-9).

 

The word translated "cast their leaves" is that which is employed to describe "an abominable branch cast forth" (14:19) and two abominable kings; Jehoakim and Jeconiah, similarly discarded by an angry God (Jer. 22:19,28). The same word is used also for the rubbish gate of the temple (1 Chr. 26:16), and has probably inspired Paul's expression for the "casting away" of Israel (Rom. 11:15).

 

Nevertheless the "tree" of Israel will survive through the "holy seed" foretold in the next prophecy (7:14), the rod out of the stem of Jesse, the Branch out of his roots (11:1), the Branch of the Lord who will be beautiful and glorious (4:2), the dead Tree of Golgotha a veritable Tree of Life.

 

This theme of the nation's tribulation and survival constantly recurs in Isaiah. Its primary reference is to the amazing destruction and revival of Judah in Hezekiah's reign. Its more basic meaning is to the casting off of Jewry and an ultimate re-gathering and prosperity through the salvation brought by a rejected Messiah.

[Resource Manager]

Chapter 7

 

7:1 "And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin 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."

 

One could wish to know fuller details about the historical background to this prophecy. An inscription of Tiglath-pileser mentions both Menahem of Samaria and Rezin of Damascus as paying tribute to Assyria. So evidently at the time of this prophecy, whilst the Assyrian king was busy with fighting to the north and east of his capital, these two vassals rebelled and set about forcing Judah to join an anti-Nineveh confederacy. Refusal meant facing their combined invading armies. Verse 6 shows that they were determined to have a nominee of their own ruling in Jerusalem. 2 Kings 15:37 sets this development in the last year of Jotham. It may be inferred, then, that Ahaz was co-opted to the throne as regent — "in the days of Ahaz" requires such a conclusion. The mention of "the house of David" (v.2) where one could expect explicit reference to king Ahaz, also supports this idea.

 

This chapter now goes on to make the remarkable prophecy that both Samaria and Damascus would be plundered, and that Assyria (whose "friendship" with Judah was bought by a massive "present"; 2 Kgs. 16:7,8) would turn enemy and overrun Judah, and yet would be broken, the house of David continuing inviolate.

 

It is important to recognize the shape of the narrative here: verse 1 summarizes the main development and then proceeds to tell its story in greater detail. This is a not uncommon feature of Biblical narrative (e.g. Gen. 14:1; 21:1; 22:1; Ex. 24:1,9; Mt. 10:5).

 

From the histories (2 Chr. 28:5-15; 2 Kgs. 16:5,6) it is evident that a successful inroad was made by the invaders, but the plan did not come to full fruition. Jerusalem remained uncaptured. (Note RV: "went up to Jerusalem".) The singular verb "could not", either implies two separate campaigns by the two allies, or — more likely — that Pekah was much the weaker of the two partners. The numbers given in Chronicles (28:6,8) appear to have suffered the distortion which is traceable in so many Old Testament figures. The fact that a coup d'etat could be successfully mounted in Israel by a mere fifty Gileadites strongly suggests this (2 Kgs. 15:25).

 

The phrase: "they (Syria and Israel) could not prevail against it (Jerusalem)" actually quotes the Hebrew text of Num. 22:11 — Balak's intention to rid himself of God's people. But as that purpose came to nought, so also this.

[Resource Manager]

7:2 "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 woods are moved with the wind."

 

Syria, with a long memory reaching back to the days of David's empire (2 Sam. 8:6), was doubtless glad of a chance to settle old scores by uprooting a dynasty which had now lasted nearly three hundred years. And Ephraim, with a constantly smouldering resentment of Judah's long-established leadership of the twelve tribes (1 Chr. 5:2), now saw an opportunity to turn the tables.

 

The Hebrew text may mean either that "Syria hath rested on Ephraim" (that is, the Syrian army had already moved south into Israel), or that "Syria has taken the lead over Ephraim" (Pekah having only lately usurped the throne).

 

The reaction of both king and people was the same — a panicky swithering between alternative policies. How well the figure of the wind-blown trees of the forest describes the vacillating attitudes of this decadent people. Some doubtless said: 'Why not join the confederacy, and with combined strength stand up to grow­ing Assyrian might?' More boldly, some probably advocated: 'Fight the two of them. God is on our side.' Another scheme was to buy Assyrian aid by sending to Nineveh all the treasure that could be spared. This was the policy which had already been followed by Israel before the Syrian alliance developed, and it had been repeatedly denounced in very blunt terms by Hosea (5:13; 8:8,10; 10:5-7). Ahaz must have known this, but even this was the weak, short-sighted scheme that he came to adopt. It is probable that at the time when the events of verses 3-4 developed, the plan outlined in 2 Kgs. 16:7,8 was already being implemented. Why could not Ahaz and his princes — "O house of David" — rest in faith on the great promise God had made to David (2 Sam. 7:12ff) that this royal line would continue? But no! It was conveniently forgotten that the promise also said: "if he (any succeeding son of that line; Ps. 89:30-32) commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men (Is. 10:5,24), and with stripes of the children of men" (2 Sam. 7:14). Ahaz was to learn the hard way.

 

The two allies launched their attacks separately; Israel made a successful invasion right up to the walls of Jerusalem, took much plunder and many useful hostages, and retired (2 Chr. 28:5ff). And meantime Rezin sent a flying column (round the east side of Ammon and Edom?) to wrest from Judah the control of Elath, the highly important port on the Red Sea (2 Kgs. 16:6).

[Resource Manager]

7:3 "Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;"

 

There is a problem in the narrating of this incident in the third person. Why does Isaiah not write: "Thus said the Lord unto me..."? In chapter 8 (verses 1-3,11,16-18) he has no qualms about using the pronoun "I" (had he been a twentieth century Christadelphian he would doubtless have dignified himself with the ubiquitous "we"!). Is it absurd to consider that "the prophetess" may have written this part of the record?

 

Panicky Ahaz was evidently inspecting what was intended as a major piece of engineering to cover the spring at Gihon and at the same time lead its waters inside the city walls to the foot of a convenient shaft. Such a splendid scheme had not been attempted earlier (not even in the days of Uzziah, the enterprising engineer; 2 Chr. 26:15) because it only became practicable after the great earthquake at the end of his reign. Josephus tells how "before the city, at a place called Eroge (En-Rogel), half the mountain broke off from the rest on the west, and rolled itself four furlongs (this distance is a palpable exaggeration), and stood still at the east mountain, till the roads, as well as the king's gardens, were spoilt by the obstruction" (An. 9.10.4). (See on 2:10-18).

 

Thanks to the characteristic irresolution of Ahaz the better idea of driving a conduit through the rock to Siloam was let go until the more energetic days of faithful Hezekiah (22:9).

 

The present encounter between king and prophet took place close to En-Rogel, hard by the main north-south road along the Kidron valley where it passes underneath the steep rock Zoheleth. Here was the fuller's field, that is, the place where new cloth was repeatedly washed in the waters of the spring and then laid out for treading and for drying in the sun. Later, because of the identical sound of keves (fuller) and keves (lamb), this became the place of assembly of sacrificial lambs for the temple — hence the "sheep-gate" (Jn. 5:2) and the mention there of an intermittent water flow.

 

Ahaz had with him not only the engineers but also princes of the house of David and also the daughter of the high-priest whom he was soon to marry.

 

Isaiah was bidden to take with him his infant son Shear-jashub that both prophet and child might be a sign to the king, just as the children of Hosea were intended as signs to the nation.

 

Shear-jashub (meaning: "a remnant shall return") declared the unhappy fact of a nation astray from God, all except the faithful remnant (6:13; 10:21) to which Isaiah's message had already made more than one allusion. But "Shear-jashub" also gave the assurance of both physical return of those soon to go away into captivity (37:31) and of a spiritual revival, with the people turning back to God (Hos. 14:1; Jer. 3:12,14), so that he could turn again to them — which thing actually happened very literally in the more wholesome days of Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 20:11).

Isaiah and his little boy would be all the more effective witness as the father comfortably carried his trusting infant in his arms, so that Ahaz might see "how that the Lord thy God bare thee, as a man doth bear his son, in all the way that ye went" (Dt. 1:31). "Underneath are the everlasting arms" (Dt. 33:27; cp. Hos. 11:1,3).

 

Perhaps also there was special significance in the alternative meaning of shear: One's flesh; kith and kin, as though declaring that the "return" foreshadowed would come about through a scion of the royal family, the one whom Isaiah explicitly foretold a few minutes later.

[Resource Manager]

7:4-6 "And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be faint-hearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, 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:"

 

This assurance was given entirely in the spirit of the commandment (Dt. 20:3,4) that in time of battle the army be encouraged by a priestly exhortation to faithful dependence on God (cp. 30:15; 57:20). By all means take all possible precautions (so "take heed" implies), but also relax, "be quiet" — there may be here another of Isaiah's characteristic puns by which he implies: "offer sacrifice."

 

In describing the invaders there is no lack of contemptuous phrasing. "These two tails of smoking firebrands" implies two torches burnt down to their stumps, and now merely smouldering. What a contrast with the "devouring fire" of Jehovah! (5:24; 33:14). More than this, the avoidance of the dual form in Hebrew implies that Syria and Ephraim were not really united. Hadn't they spent long years fighting each other? And even now they were intent on the two separate campaigns, Israel going against Jerusalem whilst Syria made its overland attack on Elath in the deep south.

 

Immediately after "firebrands", LXX has a markedly different reading which can hardly have been invented: "for when my fierce anger is over, I will heal again." This is what happened — Pekah's invasion met with considerable success, even though there was no direct attack on Jerusalem itself; hostages were taken (the figures of 2 Chr. 28:6,8 are surely distorted!), but thanks to the rebuke and intercession of the prophet Oded (otherwise unknown), they were treated well and sent home again.

 

Pekah is not referred to by name. Isaiah always calls him, with evident contempt, the son of Remaliah (=the high mighty one of the Lord!). Menahem, king of Israel, had meekly given fealty to the Assyrians (2 Kgs. 15:19,20), so most probably Pekah had made his easy coup d'etat with a mere fifty men (2 Kgs. 15:25), posing as an anti-Assyria patriot. His reign was to end in national disaster and his own assassination.

 

Isaiah proceeded to reveal the full plan of the invaders to Ahaz (cp. 2 Kgs. 6:12), and by that very fact told him that his own scheme of an alliance with Assyria (2 Kgs. 16:7) was also fully known to the Lord.

 

The intention to "vex" Judah may possibly mean "waken it up" that is, to active participation in the alliance. Or "make a breach therein" may carry the idea: "split it in two." The very different LXX reading supports the former of these: "and having con­ferred with them, we will turn them away to our side." But the intention to replace Ahaz by the son of Tabeal suggests violence such as king-making in Israel normally involved. Had not Baasha, Zimri, Omri, Jehu, Menahem, and Pekah all come to the throne by violence and assassination?

 

Kay has a particularly interesting suggestion regarding "the son of Tabeal." The name, meaning "God is good", is Aramaic, and is obviously modelled on Tab-rimmon (1 Kgs.15:18). Tabeal was perhaps grandson of Naaman, the godly Syrian general who was healed of his leprosy, and who went back home determin­ed to erect an altar to the God of Israel and to worship Him in the midst of Syrian idolatry (2 Kgs. 5:17). How likely it is that he would have his descendant named "God is good"!

 

Such a nominee would surely be acceptable to all parties — to Syria, as belonging to an old loyal Damascus family; to Israel as descended from one blessed by Elisha the prophet; and to Judah, as a worshipper of the true God (in contrast to Ahaz and his pagan altars) and as descended from a healed leper (in contrast to Ahaz, the grandson of leprous Uzziah).

 

But the Law of Moses had explicitly required that "thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shalt choose; one from thy brethren..." (Dt. 17:15).

[Resource Manager]

7:7-9 "Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. 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. 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."

 

Here is an expression of divine contempt for the invaders of His Kingdom. True, there had been times, and there were more to come, when God would use Gentile powers to discipline His wayward people (e.g. v.20; Jer. 27:6), but this was not such: "It shall not stand." These human pyramids will topple. Syria propping up the self-importance of Damascus, and Damascus ministering to the pride of Rezin, were of no consequence. Not a word said about Rezin promoting glory of that not-god Rimmon!

 

And what good was that other pyramid: Ephraim...Samaria...the son of Remaliah, who was no honour to the God of his fathers?

 

But let Ahaz learn that in Jerusalem there could be stability: Jehovah...Judah... mount Zion...the house of David — but this only if the house of David were itself stable; and how could that be with a vacillating Ahaz on the throne?

 

Isaiah read the king's mind, and exposed his weakness in a characteristic play on words: No belief, no relief! If not firm in faith, then not firm in fact! "Ye shall not be established", he said, deliberately echoing one of the key words of the great Davidic promise — it comes four times in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, and so also does the divine title, Adonai Jehovah, used here (v. 18-21).

 

"Not established!" Then there would come a divine chastisement (through Ahaz's Assyrian friends), even though Syria and Israel crumpled up.

 

But embedded in this passage is an interpreter's headache: Ephraim broken, ceasing to be a nation, within 65 years. It is true that Isaiah has other chronological prophecies (16:14; 21:16; 23:17), but it is easy to see that they are different in character from this one, for long before 65 years had elapsed, the northern kingdom had been swept away.

 

Attempts have been made to run this period on to the days of Esarhaddon who brought in the last foreign settlers to take the place of the northern captive tribes (Ezra 4:2), but this would be utterly pointless to stiffen the backbone of Ahaz. Running the period back to the time of Jehu, the first of a line of usurpers, similarly lacks convincingness.

 

W.A. Wordsworth suggested, with a slight modification of the Hebrew text: "within six, even five years" — that is, five years for Syria, and six for Ephraim: "The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant from Syria" (17:3) — both powers swamped by the rising tide of Assyrian power.

 

This reading harmonizes tolerably well with the rest of Isaiah 7, especially verses 14,16: "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."

[Resource Manager]

7:10-13 "Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. 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 king in his perplexity was being led by Isaiah to seek reassurance: Throw yourself upon God, and He will openly show you that your trust is not misplaced. As likely as not, Ahaz, with his bent for the importation of foreign religions, had already sought for (and had gotten) a sign from some priest of mumbo-jumbo, and it would be the kind of sign which in itself meant nothing (Dt. 13:2 warned against such). "Ask a sign of the Lord thy God" was Isaiah's imperative — "in the depth or in the height." What did he mean by this?

 

Isaiah's later declaration: "Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me" (45:11), suggests something more fundamental than just a startling phenomenon.

 

John Carter drew attention to a remarkable sequence of Scriptures using this idiom:

 

"The Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts and the womb" (Gen. 49:25). Jacob's blessing of Joseph, the great prototype of Messiah, is repeated in Moses' blessing of Joseph (Dt. 33:13; and cp. 30:12,13).

 

"Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the Lord have created it" (Is. 45:8).

 

"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind (the Spirit?) in his fists?...what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" (Pr. 30:4).

 

The suggestion is that here is an idiom of Messiah, the greatest of all blessings God offered to His people. Now, to "the house of David", which had been the sub­ject of a great and abiding promise, is the offer in time of crisis of a special renewal of that promise.

 

It may be that the prophet's language involved an even more specific figure of speech, for there was (and is) in the temple area a spring of water which percolates through some fissure in the rock to emerge in the Kidron stream, near Gihon. It has been stated that at times of specially copious sacrifice (e.g. Passover), the blood poured out at the base of the altar tinged the waters of Gihon — hence the alter­native name: the Virgin's Fountain.

 

Since the context of this prophecy is "the conduit of the upper pool" (v.3) and the urgent problem of the city's water supply in time of siege, the "height" and "depth" may be with allusion to this temple and Kidron phenomenon, in a similar way to which Jesus harnessed the familiar ceremony of water-pouring at the Feast of Tabernacles (see "Studies in the Gospels", ch. 108; and note 8:6).

 

Or it may be that by "the height" Isaiah meant God in the temple and by "the depth" he meant She'ol (RVm), the very sign which was given to the next genera­tion in the person of Hezekiah whose disease took him to "the gates of She'ol" (38:10), but who was also lifted up so that he "went up into the house of the Lord the third day" — as fine a type of Messiah as can be found anywhere in the pages of Holy Scripture.

 

However, the proffered sign was rejected by hypocrite Ahaz. He was already committed to buying the cynical aid of Tiglath-pileser (2 Kgs. 16:7,8). Besides, if he did ask and get his sign, then very soon all the nation would know that he was under a moral obligation to follow the divine directive and by that very means make an enemy of the king of Assyria.

 

So he cloaked his refusal in false piety, with allusion to Moses' precept: "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Dt. 6:16) — a Scripture which clearly meant: You shall not tempt God by disbelieving Him. And the immediate context of it was: "Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you" (v. 14), which sin Ahaz was already dedicated to (2 Kgs. 16:10-16). It is significant that although Isaiah had said: "the Lord thy God", Ahaz said only: "the Lord", making an omission which proclaimed out loud his pathetic faithlessness.

 

Indignantly the prophet of the Lord addressed himself now not only to the king but to all his entourage: "Hear ye now, O house of David (this is referred to in Mt. 1:20); is it a small thing for you to weary men (who slave away to make this conduit), but will ye weary my God also (by refusing to call him your God and by turning away from His proffered help)?"

 

But the days were to come when a much more extreme situation led good king Hezekiah to quote in faith the very words of Isaiah on this occasion (2 Chr. 32:7,8 = 7:4 and the Immanuel prophecy of v. 14): "Be not afraid nor dismayed ...with us is the Lord our God, who fainteth not neither is weary" (Is. 40:28).

[Resource Manager]

7:14 "Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

 

For the most part the commentators leave this prophecy in a tangled mess. It is hoped that this discussion may prove to be more lucid. First, it must be acknowledged that this is certainly a prophecy of Messiah's birth.

 

The New Testament says so; therefore it is.

 

But not only a prophecy of Messiah! The immediate context and especially verses 15,16 require some sort of reference also to contemporary events. It was a sign to Ahaz — "shall give you a sign" — but if meaning is confined to the Virgin birth, that would be no sign to Ahaz at all.

 

Also, the much neglected principle has to be taken into account that with hardly any exceptions Messianic prophecies have also a reference to events which have just happened in the prophet's own day or are just about to happen. It is no exaggeration to say that the Bible has literally scores of examples of this characteristic.

 

With these basic considerations in mind it is necessary to pause and note the arguments which rule out various alternative interpretations.

 

A great favourite is that Immanuel was another son of Isaiah. The sheet-anchor for this is 8:18: "Behold, I and the sons whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts." Thus Immanuel is classed with Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz. But since the former of these was already born, it becomes necessary to invent for Isaiah a second wife who at that time was still a virgin. Also, as will be shown in the commentary on chapter 8, the "sons" of Isaiah spoken of there are his disciples, and not his natural children. There is also evidence of 8:18 which speaks of Judah as "Immanuel's land", thus implying, as did also the sign to Ahaz and the house of David, that Immanuel was not a son of Isaiah the priest but of Ahaz the king.

 

The correct view, then, almost certainly, of this Immanuel prophecy is that in the first instance it foretells the birth of Hezekiah, the matchless prototype of Messiah. Against this there is only one argument to be advanced. This will be examined by and by.

 

In support there are these considerations:

 

1. The argument from "Immanuel's land" and the sign to Ahaz just mentioned.
    
   
2. The fact that every chapter of this prophecy, from chapter 7 onwards right through to chapter 66, readily fits Hezekiah and his times just as easily as it fits the Messiah. From here on, the two-fold application presents little difficulty. Thus, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
    
   
3. The ensuing sequence of passages about the child born to sit on "the throne of David" and to be the "rod out of the stem of Jesse" (9:6; 11:1) fit the preceding prophecy about an Immanuel born to Ahaz as a hand fits its glove.
    
   
4. The remarkably similar passage in Micah 4 about a woman in travail (v.9,10), the captivity of God's people in "Babylon" (=Assyria, as can be shown), and the ultimate triumph over invading enemies, is linked (5:2) with the birth of one who is to rule God's people in the Messianic pattern and thwart Assyria's evil intentions (5:4-6). Here the primary reference to Hezekiah is undeniable (as also in Micah 7). So the close resemblance to Isaiah 7 strongly suggests a Hezekiah prototype there.

 

In passing it may be mentioned that the only alternative to equating the "virgin" with the maiden whom Ahaz was about to marry is to pick up Micah's allusions to "the daughter of Zion" (4:8,10; Is. 37:22). But even thus there may be a real woman who is herself a figure of the holy city.

[Resource Manager]

The only difficulty here, strongly pressed by many commentators, is the chronology, thus: Hezekiah began his reign at the age of 25 (2 Kgs. 18:2), and therefore, since Ahaz reigned 16 years, he was already 9 years old at the beginning of Ahaz's reign, (aged 20), at the time of Isaiah 7. Acceptance of these figures im­parts a high degree of improbability into the record, by having Ahaz beget his son at the age of 10. Since there are signs that in the ancient copies numerals were not written in full but were indicated by letters used with numerical value, it would need only the smallest distortion in the text to make Hezekiah 15 at his accession (and not 25) This would then mean that he was born about the end of the first year of the reign of Ahaz, precisely as has been already inferred from Isaiah 7 and the Syria-Israel threat. It would be natural, too, that Ahaz should marry very soon after coming to the throne.

 

It is possible to consider 7:14 in greater detail:

 

The prophet's "Therefore" is forceful, as implying: "because of your faithlessness, Ahaz, the Lord himself will give you a sign" — a happening with special meaning.

 

The Hebrew word almah quite evidently, in all its other Bible occurrences, means a virgin a mature unmarried woman. "It would most naturally be used of a virgin betrothed" (W.A. Wordsworth). And the definite article: "the virgin" suggests one known to the king, very probably actually present: "this virgin", whom the king was shortly to marry: Abijah, the daughter (grand-daughter?) of Zechariah, the high priest (2 Chr. 29:1; 24:20).

 

The Hebrew verbs: "conceive...bear...shall call..." all have an element of un­certainty about them because of possible differences of pointing. They are best read as futures. lXX and two other ancient versions: "Thou (Ahaz) shall call his name...", thus reinforcing the primary interpretation already suggested. There is no lack of examples in Scripture of a new-born child being named by his father (8:3; Gen. 4:1,25; 21:3; Hos. 1:4; Lk. 1:63) or by mother (Gen. 29:32,33; 30:18,20,23; 1 Sam. 1:20).

 

The name given, Immanuel, does not mean 'He is God-with-us' (as the churches like to read it), but: 'God is with us' (the faithful remnant; 8:10)! Hezekiah was probably known by this lovely name until the time of his own accession.

 

It is time now to turn attention to the fitness of this prophecy to the birth of Jesus.

 

Now, Isaiah's "Behold" is even more appropriate. And as the baby Immanuel was a sign in Ahaz's desperate days, so also the baby Jesus: "This shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes" (Lk. 2:12) — and found in the city of David, as Isaiah's sign and Micah's prophecy both required.

 

More than this, the Hebrew for "give you a sign" uses the verb nathan, thus indirectly intimating that the line of Ahaz, going back to Solomon crowned at Gihon (1 Kgs. 1:38) was to be superseded by an Immanuel descended from Nathan, son of David (Lk. 3:31).

 

It is surely important that the translation: "virgin" (and not "young woman") should find such pointed support from LXX, for its Greek: parthenos, put into that translation at least 150 years before Christ, means "a virgin", no other meaning is possible. By contrast the later Greek versions done for the diaspora after the time of Christ show their Jewish prejudice by switching to neanis, a young woman.

 

There are, of course, other Old Testament prophecies anticipating the virgin birth of our Lord; e.g. Gen. 3:15; Ps. 22:9; Is. 49:1.

[Resource Manager]

It has been remarked that the word of Gabriel to Mary: "thou shalt conceive in thy womb" (Lk. 1:31) has an element of redundancy. Was this to emphasize that it was to be indeed a literal virgin birth; the angel's words were not at all figurative.

 

"God is with us" is a beautiful idea which runs right through Scripture.

 

"Behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest", God promised Jacob (Gen. 28:15)

 

Moses pleaded for an extension of this promise: "Wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not that thou goest with us?" (Ex. 33:16).

 

And Israel learned that "the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest" (Josh. 1:9). but hesitating Gideon lacked this confidence: "If the Lord be with us why is all this befallen us?" (Jud. 6:13).

 

Solomon prayed for this divine presence with Israel (1 Kgs. 8:57). And of course this was specially true in Hezekiah's day: "The Lord was with him, and he prospered whithersoever he went forth" (2 Kgs. 18:7). Accordingly, he exhorted his men: "With him (the Assyrian) is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles" (2 Chr. 32:8; Dt. 20:4).

 

How emphatically was this true about Immanuel himself! "He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone, for I do always those things that please him" (Jn. 8:29). True also of those in Christ who please him: "And he shall be with them, walking in the way...the way of holiness (Is. 35:8; see RVm). "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8:31).

 

It is the final consolation: "They shall be his people and God himself shall be with them, and be their God" (Rev. 21:3).

 

One other allusion, at somewhat greater length. Nicodemus came to Jesus, saying: "No man can do these signs except God be with him," that is, I recognize that you are the promised Immanuel. So Jesus carried on the allusion: If you would belong to me, then you must have a divine begettal, as I had: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:2,3). And when Jesus died, Nicodemus was marvellously born from above, after the pattern of his Master.