to: DCP, Wade, Benjamin M, Nehor, Rocket, Maklelan,Whyme,Gaz

[Reflexzero]

You’re in luck because I’m feeling particularly verbose today…

Cliff Notes version:

Ahaz is all scared and thinking about shacking up with Assyria. YHWH sends Isaiah, who brings his son whose name isn’t all that much of a soother. Ahaz refuses Isaiah’s call to stop being scared (and to trust YHWH). YHWH asks if Ahaz wants a sign. Ahaz refuses. Isaiah gets pissed, and gives a sign anyway – within 2-3 years, the two northern kings that Ahaz is afraid of won’t be around. Ahaz still doesn’t listen, so we are given several oracles about the crap that Judah is going to face because of the king’s refusal to trust YHWH.

Non-Cliff Notes version:

Essentially, the “setting” is a meeting between the king and the prophet because of a nice little threat of attack from some northern peeps, Israel and Syria (see 2 Kings 16 – interestingly, things haven’t seemed to have changed much in the few millennia since this was written). The King (Ahaz) was likely checking out the waterworks (“conduit of the upper pool”) in expectation of the potential invasion, and in his fear (his heart shaking “as the trees of the forest shakes before the wind”) he was about to kowtow to Assyria who was a bigger threat (and much more powerful) than the current two smaller threats. Kind of a “rob Peter to pay Paul” decision he was dealing with.

The little policy decision (i.e. the king making a deal with Assyria) would have had a big theological implication as well as a political one. This is kind of emphasized in the way the king is referred to as the “House of David”). So, since we had this fun little theological and political quandary that threatened not just the existence of G-d’s people, but the promises made (for example, Samual 7:11ish), the heavenly 911 dispatch center sends out the prophetic YHWH S.W.A.T. (with Isaiah will be his son, whose name brings into existence the notion of “a remnant” and all-in-all isn’t all that much of a soother).

Isaiah (YHWH) is to help the King (House of David) stop being a little panicky scared ass by making fun of the threat (making fun of the threat is likely also a way to give assurance/reassurance of eventual salvation – a kind of “hey man, that’s just a sliver… why are you focused on that little thing when I’m going to give you a kilo of cocaine?”), and helping the King to reassess the little political situation he’s facing.

In this little political analysis, we reach a pinnacle of sorts when Isaiah drops one of those good ole conditional bombs in verse 9 (the ever-so-lovely “if”). What makes this particular conditional statement surprising is that up until this point, the Davidic theology has been void of such conditional statements – this is a pretty big shift (to borrow Walter Brueggemann’s term, up until this point the Davidic kingdom essentially had a blank check from Yahweh).

Isaiah calls the king to return to the assurance that YHWH gave long ago to his family and kingdom. This assurance (or “faith”) isn’t some namby-pamby “belief” or spiritual exercise, but is a real tangible action he’s asking for. He is calling the king to act in his official capacity to put his reliance upon YHWH (something that illegitimate bastard “the son of Remaliah” doesn’t have [it’s kind of funny how Isaiah never calls him by his name]). This whole dialogue kind of becomes a little cage match of “faith vs. fear.”

The king seemingly refuses this call to sweeping faith/trust, so now it’s time to bring out the big guns. Before we had the representative of YHWH talking, but now here comes daddy – “the Lord” comes out and tells the king “hey dude, do you want me to prove this junk to you?” Ahaz refuses the offer, so back comes Isaiah rebuking him, and giving him a sign anyway. There are basically four issues related to the sign (I will go into detail on each later):

1 – A young woman is going to have a kid (the woman is a minor aspect of the sign, the focus is on the child).
2 – The child’s name is going to be Immanuel.
3 – The child will know good from evil while he is a toddler.
4 – The two kings will be terminated.


1) Although she is rather incidental to the prophetic utterance, she has garnered a lot of attention. Of course there’s the obvious attribution to the virgin Mary. I believe others have tried to identify her with the prophet’s wife, the wife of the king, or even some kind of mythical being. In the end though, the sign/prophecy isn’t concerned with her.

2) The choice of name stands in stark contrast to the name of Isaiah’s son that came with him. This name stands as a reassurance of the Davidic promises of Samuel, and as such it is another call to have faith/trust in YHWH.

3) He will be able to “choose the good” and “refuse the evil” by the time he is eating curds and honey, which would be the ANE equivalent of some yummy Gerber stuff (which is also likely a reference that the child will reach this age during a time of prosperity).

4) Before the time that the child is eating Gerber food, the two kings, and kingdoms will be dust in the wind. This is basically a promise, and once again a call, to trust that the current threat isn’t worth running to Assyria over (also it sets a time frame of about 2-3 years).

So, we basically have the woman, the child, and the time frame all coming together to once again give assurance to the king (to stop being such a pussy), and to trust that YHWH will take care of it… if he trusts Him.

We have a pretty drastic change from the nice hugs-n-kisses assurance of the previous verses when we get to verse 17. This tends to make it evident that the king still refused the call to have trust/faith. Isaiah tells him that there’s some trouble a-brewin’ for Judah because of his refusal. They’re going to go through some crap that they haven’t known since 922 when the kingdom was split. And where’s this crap gonna come from? None other than the brutal and ruthless Sennacherib.

G-d offered to be “with [them],” but now He’s against them in the form of Assyria thus fulfilling the conditional “no faith = no future.”

The remainder is basically an articulation of the ill-omened future the king has brought about by being such a turd (save the third oracle that tends to be a strangely placed slight bright light).

----------------

The Christological readings that I’ve seen put to this focus mainly on the prophetic utterance Isaiah gives after getting mad at Ahaz. I’m not familiar with anything Christological readings that take the remainder of the chapter into account (that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, just that I’m ignorant to their existence).


Edit:
Why the crap is the MB editing my G”-“d to “God” ?

That’s pretty damn smarmy.

[_maklelan]

there is no betulah in Isaiah - isn't that in reference to Rebeka.

What I'm saying is that Isaiah 7's 'almah may have been understood as a synonym for betulah ("virgin"), making the translation parthenos perfectly accurate.

[_karl61]

there is no betulah in Isaiah - isn't that in reference to Rebeka.

What I'm saying is that Isaiah 7's 'almah may have been understood as a synonym for betulah ("virgin"), making the translation parthenos perfectly accurate.

but not one Jew will agree with that and Isaiah was written to Jews.

[_karl61]

And I'm still waiting for someone to name a Hebrew Immanuel.

[_Doctor Steuss]

but not one Jew will agree with that and Isaiah was written to Jews.

I thought the Septuagint was translated by Jews (which renders this particular almah as parthenos).

In other words, I believe you might be incorrect in your assertion.

[_karl61]

you are right!

[_Doctor Steuss]

you are right!

Woohoo!

And to think, my mom said I'd never amount to anything.

[_maklelan]

but not one Jew will agree with that and Isaiah was written to Jews.

First Isaiah was written for pre-exilic Israelites. Modern Jews are incredibly far removed from that ideological backdrop. Modern Judaism interprets Isaiah 7 in response to Christian interpretations. Whether that's accurate or not is not for a Jew or a Christian to say, but what definitely cannot be said is that they have a privileged perspective. Modern Jews are no more pre-exilic Israelites than I am a Celtic Christian.

[_maklelan]

And I'm still waiting for someone to name a Hebrew Immanuel.

Name a Hebrew person named Immanuel?

[_karl61]

And I'm still waiting for someone to name a Hebrew Immanuel.

Name a Hebrew person named Immanuel?

you are right!