   |
|
|
1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the 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.
The northern kingdom's practice left the line of succession more open, and a comparison of the king lists for each kingdom confirms the greater turnover and change of dynasties in the northern kingdom. The political situation in the beginning of this chapter of Isaiah highlights the division between the northern and southern kingdoms. As with much of the history of the Hebrews, tribal affiliations underlay much of the politics, and the separation of the two kingdoms was a renewal of the rivalry between Judah and the Ephraim-Manassah-Benjamin power centers that were united by David. (Gottwald, p. 242.) The tribal divisions becomes important in understanding Isaiah, particularly in this chapter, where the house of David becomes the lineage designation for the southern kingdom, and Ephraim becomes the tribal division that signifies the northern kingdom of Israel. While both descended from the Davidic/Solomonic unified kingdom, by this point they have been separate for over 200 years, and following differing independent strategies of political alliance. At this point in time, the king of Israel (the northern kingdom) has allied with Syria. The politics of the time were very complicated, with independent countries bolstering their intentions with alliances with other nations. In this particular instance, Syria has allied with Israel, and has intentions of conquering Judah by pressing against Jerusalem. Ahaz is not unaware of this Syro-Israelite alliance, and has made an alliance of his own with Assyria. While Ahaz is placing his confidence in this political alliance, Isaiah will tell him he should rather place his confidence in the Lord. Through the course of this prophecy to Ahaz, Isaiah will tell him that the consequences of the Judah-Assyria alliance will be only temporarily beneficial, and eventually disastrous. "At the time the Immanuel prophecy was given (about 734 B.C.) the country of Judah was under threat of attack by Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel. These kings had formed an alliance during the final part of the reign of Jotham, the predecessor of Ahaz, and had made war against Jerusalem but had not been able to prevail against it. (See 2 Kgs. 15:37; 16:5.) When Ahaz came to the throne in 735 B.C., the Syro-Ephraimite coalition made a renewed effort to take Jerusalem. The alliance had as its primary goal the unification of all the countries in the area into a solid anti-Assyrian block. When Ahaz refused to join, Rezin and Pekah decided to subjugate Judah and replace Ahaz with a leader more sympathetic to their anti-Assyrian policies." (Ludlow, p. 139.)
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 wood are moved with the wind.
In poetic language. the news of the union between the northern kingdom and Assyria is "moving." For the political reality of a close neighbor being aligned with another locally powerful state, the poetic language is understatement. Grave concern would be more appropriate than "moved." Perhaps the movement of the movement of the trees refers to the shaking of the leaves, and might refer to a symbolic shaking in fear.
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; The Lord sends Isaiah with his son (Shear-jashub) to meet with king Ahaz. Isaiah is a resident of the southern kingdom, and therefore loyal to his king, Ahaz. Isaiah’s sons figure importantly in both this chapter and the next. It is certainly possible that they are his actual sons, but their presence is more important for their names than their persons. In this case, Isaiah is accompanied by a son whose name means "a remnant shall return." (Ludlow, p. 140.) At the beginning of this chapter, there is a foreshadowing in the name of the son which portents the coming events. Surely a remnant will return, but not until there is a destruction and a driving out that will require such a return. The name is therefore the important part here, and not the presence of the son himself. The son comes so that the name can be brought into the beginning of the prophecy as a powerful portent.
4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.
The smoking firebrands are quite clearly the belligerent kings of Syria and Israel. It is possible that the "tails" refers to the recent defeat of the two kings and their retreat. Isaiah is emphasizing their defeat and attempting to quell Ahaz’s fears of their future intentions.
5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, 2 NE. 17:6 6 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:
7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
8 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. 2 NE. 17:9 9 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.
The message, however, is not in the truth of the statements of the kings, but the particular prophecy. Within 65 years the house of Ephraim will be destroyed. Ephraim will no longer be a "people," or an independent nation. Ahaz is given this information, and is shown the weight of it. He is told to believe, or else Ahaz will "not be established." His own kingdom depends on his heed to this prophetic assurance. Isaiah does not tell us why there is a correlation between Ahaz believing this prophecy and his own survival as king. We can read into this statement the contexts of history, and understand the reason. Ahaz had determined that he required a powerful alliance of his own, and made such an alliance with Assyria. In some way, Ahaz’s political alliance with Assyria provided the invitation for military action by Assyria that would create tremendous destruction not only in Israel, but also would result in subjugation of Judah.
10 ¶ Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 2 NE. 17:11 11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
13 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?
Gileadi renders the text as "try the patience" rather than "weary": Then Isaiah said, Take heed, O house of David! Is it not enough for you to try the patience of men? Must you also try the patience of my God? (Gileadi, p. 108.) In both translations, the essence is that the actions of the king are trying. The first phrase refers to the role of the king in taxation and perhaps in military conscription. Through the office of the king he imposes upon his subjects. Isaiah’s couplet places the blame for vexatious political actions as Ahaz’s feet, and suggests that Ahaz is now about to just as cavalierly vex the Lord. It is a small thing to vex man. Now, by refusing a sign, Ahaz his vexing his God. The Lord has made an offer. Who is Ahaz to refuse?
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.
The Messianic interpretation hinges on two pieces. the "virgin" and the name "Immanuel." The name would be considered a description rather than a name. and clearly the mortal Messiah was named Jesus (Yeshua). The name "Immanuel" means "God with us" which becomes an excellent description of the mortal Christ, though perhaps a stronger image for those who see Jesus and his Father as the same, and therefore Jesus as the literal embodied presence of God. The appellation "virgin" is also very clearly related to the story of Mary. However, the selection of that term may also be dependent upon the Christian text, as the Hebrew almah might more properly read "young woman." Certainly a "young woman" might carry the connotation of "virgin," but the emphasis on her sexual status is explicit in the term "virgin" but not required in the concept of a "young woman." The term is clearly not the bethulah that has a much stronger connotation of "virgin," as would be expected in the text in Genesis: Gen. 24:16 16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin [bethulah], neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. In other words, the current interpretation may be colored by our search for Messianic texts. Contextual exegesis: In the context of Isaiah's prophecy, a purely Messianic interpretation of this text is impossible (though a dual prophetic intent can remain). The prophecy is given to Ahaz as a sign. It certainly is a poor sign for Ahaz if the fulfillment of the sign comes 700 years after his death. To be what Isaiah announced it to be, the sign would have to be something that Ahaz would be able to see fulfilled, and therefore be able to consent to the power of the Lord as seen through the sign given. The nature of the more historical sign is understood better as the specifics of the sign are declared in the following verses.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
The reference here is to a time of peace and prosperity. The failure of the initiative of the Syro-Israel alliance will give Judah a time of prosperity. This time of prosperity is specifically linked to the child not because of the child, but because the typical life events of the child will mark the timeframe of the prophecy.
16 For 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.
The time frame involves the life of the son. Before this child is old enough to make the distinction between good and evil, an event will occur. The event will be an invasion of Assyrian that will have dire effect on Judah, even though it was directed as the Syro-Israeli coalition. "The fulfillment came about in successive stages. First, Tiglath-Pileser III (Pul) attacked Syria and Israel in 732 B.C. and took many Israelites captive to Assyria, especially those from the northern tribes. Secondly, in 730-727, Pul annexed the Transjordan area and departed large numbers of the Israelite tribes from that area to the far reaches of the Assyrian Empire. Third, in 726, Hoshea refused to pay Assyrian tribute, and Pul’s successor, Shalmaneser, retaliated by attacking Israel and besieging Samaria, which fell in 722 B.C. Thus, within a dozen years of Isaiah'’ prophecy, the alliance had completely failed, and three major groups of Israelites had been deported. Finally, large groups of the Israelites fled from Assyria to the remote areas northward and became the lost Ten Tribes of Israel. Apparently, within about fifty years of their leaving Assyria, they were scattered so widely that many of them no longer existed as a cohesive group. Thereby Isaiah’s prophecy to Ephraim was completely realized. In the last part of the prophecy, Isaiah warns Judah that she must remain firm in her trust of the Lord or she will not be able to stand. Unfortunately, Ahaz did not heed this warning and relied instead upon the Assyrians for deliverance. The Assyrians did hinder the Syro-Israelite attack by destroying Syria and large parts of Israel, but since the Assyrians desired more territory and wealth, Judah found herself paying tribute to avoid war." (Ludlow, p. 141-2.) The "sign", therefore, refers to the destruction of Israel by Assyria, which will happen shortly (before a newborn male will have the opportunity to learn good from evil). This sign came within a time sufficient for Ahaz to see and comprehend the fulfillment of the prophecy, and therefore the sign. What then of the virgin and the Messianic name? With the sense of the sign coming in the time for the destruction of Israel, the mother and the son are mechanisms in the sign, not the sign themselves. Reading "young woman" rather than "virgin" contextualizes the mother as a generic mother rather than a specific one. The name "God with us" is just as easily prescient of the fulfillment of the sign as it is a declaration of the mortal embodiment of the Savior. In its historical context both mother and son are irrelevant. We need not search for any special woman nor ominously named child. They are meant to be generic, and are the medium for explaining a time period before the destruction of Israel, an event that Ahaz will live to witness. and the subject of the previous prophetic statements from Isaiah. Indeed, the verses following have strong echoes of the themes and language of those prophecies of the destruction of Israel. Ludlow, however, disagrees with the above analysis, preferring to see the mother and son as real people in that time frame. After discussing the scholarly debate on the issue, he notes: "instead of the son of any woman fulfilling the promise, the son of one particular woman was designated. In the Hebrew, a definite article precedes the term translated as "virgin" or "young woman," indicating that she is the virgin not just a virgin or any young women." (Ludlow p. 144.) However, he does agree that: "regardless of the precise identity of the woman and her child, it appears obvious that the circumstances of the child’s birth and the conditions surrounding his early life were so much an evidence of divine protection as to make proper his name, Immanuel, for God was truly with the people of Judah." (Ludlow, p. 144.)
17 ¶ The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.
Gileadi’s translation of this passage is clearer than the KJV: The Lord will bring upon you and your people and your father’s house a day unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah - the day of the king of Assyria. (Gileadi, p. 109.) The italicized "the day" is Gileadi’s insertion of text that he suggest is implied. The implication would come for the paralleling of the day "unlike any" and the coming of the king of Assyria. From the poetic parallels Isaiah incorporates into his writing, this reading continues the literary aspect of Isaiah better than simply reporting that the king of Assyria would come. Isaiah is warning Ahaz that the alliance with the king of Assyria might bring some few years of peace (when a young man might be eating butter and honey, v. 15) but will eventually be a curse on Judah - a curse not seen since the internal strife surrounding the split of the Solominic kingdom.
18 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.
19 And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes.
20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard.
"The humiliation and slavery that will befall the people is represented in verse 20 by the razor cutting off their hair. The Assyrians cut off all the hair from their captives for three reasons: humiliation, sanitation (especially while traveling under crude conditions to Assyria), and separation (if any slaves escaped while being moved from their homeland, they could not blend in with other peoples since their baldness would give them away; thus they usually were quickly recaptured, punished, and returned to their captors.)" (Ludlow, p. 145.)
21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep; 2 NE. 17:22 22 And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land.
The problem is that the abundance comes only because the population is so decimated that those few that are left have a greater portion of the goods of the land: "The seriousness of the devastation in the land is expressed in verses 22-25. People will be able to retain only a fraction of their original herds and flocks (v. 22) yet the population will be so decimated that the limited livestock will provide plentiful milk and curds to the survivors. . . The abundance of honey in these devastating circumstances comes from the large land areas that are left uncultivated and quickly turn to wild flowers, weeds, and other blossom-producing plants. Thus, ironically, the few who remain in the land will enjoy milk and money because of the relatively large numbers of food-producing animals They will still have problems and dangers, however, since they must fight off the weeds, thorny bushes, and wild animals. All in all, Isaiah describes serious conditions that will beset the people." (Ludlow, p. 146.)
23 And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns.
In that day every plot of ground with a thousand vines worth a thousand pieces of currency shall be briars and thorns. (Gileadi, p. 109.)
24 With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns.
25 And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle.
And on all hillsides cultivated by the hoe you will no longer go for fear of the briars and thorns, but they shall serve as a cattle range, a terrain for sheep to tread down. (Gileadi, p. 109.) Once again, we have cultivated land being abandoned. In this case, not only are there briars and thorns, but the lands become range for livestock. This is a total reversal of land use. I suggest that the metaphor of cultivated versus wild stands for the civilized/uncivilized contrast, and the effect of the prophecy is not simply to tell of the devastation of earth, but of culture. |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1998 |
2
NE. 17:1
|
|
 |