Subject: Re: Isaiah 7:14
Date: 21 Jun 1999 07:27:03 GMT
From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.bible.prophecy,aus.religion,aus.religion.christian
[alt.christnet groups trimmed]
In aus.religion.christian Able <> wrote:
> For anyone seeking an indepth study of Isaiah 7,
>
> http://ccel.wheaton.edu/calvin/comment2/is1-20.htm
>
> It clearly demonstrates from the Hebrew how the simplistic ideas
> expressed here by both Jew and atheists are unlikely to be correct. It
> also puts into perspective the role of the pagan King Ahaz.
This page is in fact a translation of a commentary by Calvin. By all
means read it. It amply confirms that the classical Christian view
is incredibly simplistic.
To be fair, Able's own previous discussions of Isaiah in this group
have not been quite as awful as Calvin's commentary. Able has
previously recognized that Isaiah is indeed speaking of a birth at
the time of Ahaz; although he has argued that there is a second
meaning fulfilled in Jesus which was intended from the beginning
(rather than the second meaning being supplied exclusively by
Matthew).
Calvin, on the other hand, goes right off the deep end. Calvin does
not even admit that Isaiah in verse 14 speaks of a birth at the
time of Ahaz; and insists that this verse refers exclusively to
the messiah, and that it was not fulfilled until the birth of Jesus.
The bible itself makes it clear that Calvin is speaking nonsense.
However, his commentary does provide an interesting example of a
well educated man attempting to argue the indefensible. Counting
his errors is an exercise for the reader. I'll point out a few at
the end; found in a quick glance. I'm sure others will find more!
The cited web page is huge. I have extracted here in ASCII form
the commentary on verses 7:14-16, in the hope that it will assist
the discussion somewhat. I believe this extract of three verses
commentary is fair use for copyright purposes: and in any case the
providers of the page seem happy for their material to be used
non-commercially. The web page of course provides more context
and detail.
This extract has had all html removed. I have tried to give a direct
ASCII representation suitable for usenet. Foot notes references
are in [square brackets], but the foot notes themselves are on the
web page. Hebrew words are in {_braces_}. The web page seems to
uses another coding which seems to me to be no more informative;
in any case again the web gives a bit more on the Hebrew. Italics
are written with _underscores_.
14. ''Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign.''
Ahaz had already refused the sign which the Lord offered to
him, when the Prophet remonstrated against his rebellion and
ingratitude; yet the Prophet declares that this will not prevent
God from _giving the sign_ which he had promised and appointed
for the Jews. But what sign?
''Behold, a virgin shall conceive.'' This passage is obscure;
but the blame lies partly on the Jews, who, by much cavilling,
have labored, as far as lay in their power, to pervert the
true exposition. They are hard pressed by this passage; for it
contains an illustrious prediction concerning the Messiah, who
is here called _Immanuel_; and therefore they have labored, by
all possible means, to torture the Prophet's meaning to another
sense. Some allege that the person here mentioned is Hezekiah;
and others, that it is the son of Isaiah.
Those who apply this passage to Hezekiah are excessively
impudent; for he must have been a full-grown man when Jerusalem
was besieged. Thus they show that they are grossly ignorant
of history. But it is a just reward of their malice, that God
hath blinded them in such a manner as to be deprived of all
judgment. This happens in the present day to the papists, who
often expose themselves to ridicule by their mad eagerness to
pervert the Scriptures.
As to those who think that it was Isaiah's son, it is an utterly
frivolous conjecture; for we do not read that a deliverer would
be raised up from the seed of Isaiah, who should be called
_Immanuel_; for this title is far too illustrious to admit of
being applied to any man.
Others think, or, at least, (being unwilling to contend with the
Jews more than was necessary,) admit that the Prophet spoke of
some child who was born at that time, by whom, as by an obscure
picture, Christ was foreshadowed. But they produce no strong
arguments, and do not show who that child was, or bring forward
any proofs. Now, it is certain, as we have already said, that
this name _Immanuel_ could not be literally applied to a mere
man; and, therefore, there can be no doubt that the Prophet
referred to Christ.
But all writers, both Greek and Latin, are too much at their ease
in handling this passage; for, as if there were no difficulty
in it, they merely assert that Christ is here promised from
the Virgin Mary. Now, there is no small difficulty in the
objection which the Jews bring against us, that Christ is
here mentioned without any sufficient reason; for thus they
argue, and demand that the scope of the passage be examined:
"Jerusalem was besieged. The Prophet was about to give them a
sign of deliverance. Why should he promise the Messiah, who was
to be born five hundred years afterwards?" By this argument they
think that they have gained the victory, because the promise
concerning Christ had nothing to do with assuring Ahaz of the
deliverance of Jerusalem. And then they boast as if they had
gained the day, chiefly because scarcely any one replies to
them. That is the reason why I said that commentators have been
too much at their ease in this matter; for it is of no small
importance to show why the Redeemer is here mentioned.
Now, the matter stands thus. King Ahaz having rejected the
sign which God had offered to him, the Prophet reminds him of
the foundation of the covenant, which even the ungodly did not
venture openly to reject. The Messiah must be born; and this
was expected by all, because the salvation of the whole nation
depended on it. The Prophet, therefore, after having expressed
his indignation against the king, again argues in this manner:
"By rejecting the promise, thou wouldest endeavor to overturn
the decree of God; but it shall remain inviolable, and thy
treachery and ingratitude will not hinder God from being,
continually the Deliverer of his people; for he will at length
raise up his Messiah."
To make these things more plain, we must attend to the custom
of the Prophets, who, in establishing special promises, lay
down this as the foundation, that God will send a Redeemer. On
this general foundation God everywhere builds all the special
promises which he makes to his people; and certainly every one
who expects aid and assistance from him must be convinced of his
fatherly love. And how could he be reconciled to us but through
Christ, in whom he has freely adopted the elect, and continues
to pardon them to the end? Hence comes that saying of Paul, that
all the promises of God in Christ are Yea and Amen.
(2 Corinthians 1:20.)
Whenever, therefore, God assisted his ancient people, he at
the same time reconciled them to himself through Christ;
and accordingly, whenever famine, pestilence, and war are
mentioned, in order to hold out a hope of deliverance, he
places the Messiah before their eyes. This being exceedingly
clear, the Jews have no right to make a noise, as if the Prophet
made an unseasonable transition to a very remote subject. For
on what did the deliverance of Jerusalem depend, but on the
manifestation of Christ? This was, indeed, the only foundation
on which the salvation of the Church always rested.
Most appropriately, therefore, did Isaiah say, "True, thou
dost not believe the promises of God, but yet God will fulfill
them; for he will at length send his Christ, for whose sake he
determines to preserve this city. Though thou art unworthy, yet
God will have regard to his own honor." King Ahaz is therefore
deprived of that sign which he formerly rejected, and loses the
benefit of which he proved himself to be unworthy; but still
God's inviolable promise is still held out to him. This is
plainly enough intimated by the particle {_lachen_} _therefore_;
that is, because thou disdainest that particular sign which God
offered to thee, {_hu_}, _He_, that is, God himself, who was so
gracious as to offer it freely to thee, he whom thou _weariest_
will not fail to hold out _a sign_. When I say that the coming
of Christ is promised to Ahaz, I do not mean that God includes
him among the chosen people, to whom he had appointed his Son
to be the Author of salvation; but because the discourse is
directed to the whole body of the people.
''Will give you a sign.'' The word {_lachem_}, _to you_, is
interpreted by some as meaning _to your children_; but this
is forced. So far as relates to the persons addressed, the
Prophet leaves the wicked king and looks to the nation, so far
as it had been adopted by God. He will therefore give, not _to
thee_ a wicked king, and to those who are like thee, but _to
you_ whom he has adopted; for the covenant which he made with
Abraham continues to be firm and inviolable. And the Lord always
has some remnant to whom the advantage of the covenant belongs;
though the rulers and governors of his people may be hypocrites.
''Behold, a virgin shall conceive.'' The word _Behold_ is used
emphatically, to denote the greatness of the event; for this
is the manner in which the Spirit usually speaks of great and
remarkable events, in order to elevate the minds of men. The
Prophet, therefore, enjoins his hearers to be attentive, and
to consider this extraordinary work of God; as if he had said,
"Be not slothful, but consider this singular grace of God, which
ought of itself to have drawn your attention, but is concealed
from you on account of your stupidity."
Although the word {_gnalmah_}, _a virgin_, is derived from
{_gnalam_}, which signifies _to hide_, because the shame and
modesty of _virgins_ does not allow them to appear in public;
yet as the Jews dispute much about that word, and assert that it
does not signify _virgin_, because Solomon used it to denote a
young woman who was betrothed, it is unnecessary to contend about
the word. Though we should admit what they say, that {_gnalmah_}
sometimes denotes _a young woman_, and that the name refers, as
they would have it, to the age, (yet it is frequently used in
Scripture when the subject relates to _a virgin_,) the nature
of the case sufficiently refutes all their slanders. For what
wonderful thing did the Prophet say, if he spoke of ''a young
woman'' who _conceived_ through intercourse with a man? It
would certainly have been absurd to hold out this as a _sign_
or a miracle. Let us suppose that it denotes a young woman who
should become pregnant in the ordinary course of nature; [F101]
everybody sees that it would have been silly and contemptible
for the Prophet, after having said that he was about to speak of
something strange and uncommon, to add, ''A young woman shall
conceive''. It is, therefore, plain enough that he speaks of
_a virgin_ who should conceive, not by the ordinary course of
nature, but by the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit. And
this is the mystery which Paul extolls in lofty terms, that
God was manifested in the flesh. (1 Timothy 3:16.)
''And shall call.'' The Hebrew verb is in the feminine gender,
_She shall call_; for as to those who read it in the masculine
gender, I know not on what they found their opinion. The copies
which we use certainly do not differ. If you apply it to the
mother, it certainly expresses something different from the
ordinary custom. We know that to the father is always assigned
the right of giving a name to a child; for it is a sign of the
power and authority of fathers over children; and the same
authority does not belong to women. But here it is conveyed
to the mother; and therefore it follows that he is conceived
by the mother in such a manner as not to have a father on
earth; otherwise the Prophet would pervert the ordinary custom
of Scripture, which ascribes this office to men only. Yet it
ought to be observed that the name was not given to Christ at
the suggestion of his mother, and in such a case it would have
had no weight; but the Prophet means that, in publishing the
name, _the virgin_ will occupy the place of a herald, because
there will be no earthly father to perform that office.
''Immanuel.'' This name was unquestionably bestowed on Christ
on account of the actual fact; for the only-begotten Son of God
clothed himself with our flesh, and united himself to us by
partaking of our nature. He is, therefore, called ''God with
us'', or _united to us_; which cannot apply to a man who is
not God. The Jews in their sophistry tell us that this name
was given to Hezekiah; because by the hand of Hezekiah God
delivered his people; and they add, "He who is the servant
of God represents his person." But neither Moses nor Joshua,
who were deliverers of the nation, were so denominated; and
therefore this _Immanuel_ is preferred to Moses and Joshua,
and all the others; for by this name he excels all that ever
were before, and all that shall come after him; and it is a
title expressive of some extraordinary excellence and authority
which he possesses above others. It is therefore evident that it
denotes not only the power of God, such as he usually displays
by his servant, but a union of person, by which Christ became
God-man. Hence it is also evident that Isaiah here relates no
common event, but points out that unparalleled mystery which
the Jews labor in vain to conceal.
15. ''Butter and honey shall he eat.'' Here the Prophet proves
the true human nature of Christ; for it was altogether incredible
that he who was God should be born of _a virgin_. Such a prodigy
was revolting to the ordinary judgment of men. To hinder us from
thinking that his fancy now presents to us some apparition,
he describes the marks of human nature, in order to show, by
means of them, that Christ will actually appear in flesh, or in
the nature of man; that is, that he will be reared in the same
manner that children commonly are. The Jews had a different
way of rearing children from what is followed by us; for they
used _honey_, which is not so customary among us; and to this
day they still retain the custom of causing a child to taste
_butter and honey_, as soon as it is born, before receiving suck.
''That he may know.'' That is, until he arrive at that age when
he can distinguish between good and evil, or, as we commonly say,
''till the years of discretion''; {_lamed_} denotes the term
and period up to which he shall be reared after the manner of a
child; and this contributes still more to prove the reality of
his nature. He therefore means _understanding_ and _judgment_,
such as is obtained when the period of childhood is past. Thus we
see how far the Son of God condescended on our account, so that
he not only was willing to be fed on our food, but also, for a
time, to be deprived of _understanding_, and to endure all our
weaknesses. (Hebrews 2:14.) This relates to his human nature,
for it cannot apply to his Divinity. Of this state of ignorance,
in which Christ was for a time, Luke testifies when he says,
And he grew in wisdom, and in stature, and in favor
with God and with man. (Luke 2:52.)
If Luke had merely said that Christ _grew_, he might have
been supposed to mean _with men_; but he expressly adds, _with
God_. Christ must therefore have been, for a time, like little
children, so that, so far as relates to his human nature, he
was deficient in understanding.
16. ''Before the child shall know.'' Many have been led
into a mistake by connecting this verse with the preceding
one, as if it had been the same child that was mentioned.
They suppose that it assigns the reason, and that the particle
{_ki_} means _for_. [F102] But if we carefully examine the
Prophet's meaning, it will quickly be apparent that he leaves
the general doctrine, to which he had made a short digression,
and returns to his immediate subject. After having founded the
hope of the preservation of the city on the promised Mediator,
he now shows in what way it will be preserved.
''The child.'' I interpret this word as referring, not to Christ,
but to all children in general. Here I differ from all the
commentators; for they think that the demonstrative {_h_} points
out a particular child. But I view {_hannagnar_}, so that {_h_}
is indeed added for the purpose of making it more definite, but
is intended to point out the age, and not any particular child;
as when we say, _The child_, [F103] and add the article _The_
[F104] for the purpose of giving greater definiteness. This is
very customary in Scripture. If he had pointed out a particular
child, he would have added {_hazzeh_}, as is frequently done
in other passages. It is not probable that this promise
of the overturn of the kingdoms of Syria and Samaria, which
immediately followed, would be deferred for five hundred years,
that is, till the coming of Christ; and, indeed, it would have
been altogether absurd. The meaning therefore is, "Before the
children, who shall be born hereafter, can distinguish between
good and evil, the land which thou hatest shall be forsaken."
''The land.'' By _the land_ I understand Israel and Syria; for
though they were two, yet on account of the league which had
been formed between the two kings, they are accounted one. Some
understand by it Judea; but that cannot agree on account of the
plural noun which follows, _her_ _kings_. That these things
happened as they are written may be easily inferred from the
sacred history; for when Ahaz called the Assyrians to aid him,
_Rezin_ was slain by them. (2 Kings 16:9.) Not long afterwards,
Pekah, king of Israel, died, in the twelfth year of King Ahaz,
and was succeeded by Hoshea, the son of Elah. (2 Kings 15:30;
17:1.) Thus, before the children who should afterwards be born
were grown up, both countries would be deprived of their kings;
for before that time both Rezin and Pekah were removed out of
the land of the living. Now the discourse is addressed to Ahaz,
and God promises to him, by way of consolation, that he will
inflict punishment on the enemies of Ahaz, but for no other
purpose than to render him more inexcusable.
''Which thou hatest.'' As to the word _hatest_, Syria and the
land of Israel are said to be _hated_ or _abhorred_ by King
Ahaz, because from that quarter he was attacked by invading
armies. He therefore promises that those kings will soon
perish. Some render {_mippenei_}, _on account of_; [F105] and
I admit that this word is generally used in this sense. But I
adopt here a more natural rendering, as if he had said, ''It
shall be forsaken from the face or from the presence of the
two kings,'' and shall be left by them, so that they shall no
more be seen. And by these words it is sufficiently evident
that this must be understood as referring to both kingdoms.
Here are a few thoughts I had on reading this remarkable document...
Calvin makes the usual mistake about Immanuel being too exhalted a
name to be applied to a mere human. Many Jewish names are comparable
references to God and his deliverance, and they are never taken as
meaning the person so named is actually God. It is an accepted name
even now.
Calvin repeats the mistake about an ordinary birth not being
sufficiently unusual to be a sign. The passage makes plain that
the mere birth of the child is not fulfilment of the prophecy; but
that the child establishes that the fulfilment of the prophesied
devastation on Israel and Syria would be very soon.
Calvin's argument that there is a problem with a mother naming her
child is also inconsistent with scripture. Eve names Cain, Rachel and
Leah name their children, and also name the children born to their
respective slave-girls; Moses was named by his adoptive Egyptian
mother, and Hannah names Samuel.
The three paragraphs in which Calvin attempts to deal with the
obvious problem that Jesus was 500 years too late to be a sign of
deliverance from the Israelites and Syrians is pure assertion; there
is nothing there worth refuting. Calvin is forced by context to
return to the obvious meaning in verse 16 that the child is not
Jesus; but he can only do this by making verse 14 a kind of
messianic aside disconnected from the rest of the oracle.
In brief... Calvin's interpretation is plainly nowhere near as
sensible as the perfectly straightforward understanding held by
the Jews from well before the time of Jesus up to the present day.
One final comment. Some of Calvin's venom directed against the Jews
in this commentary also serves as a reminder that anti-semitism
frequently lurks beneath the surface of supposedly Christian
preaching. I am not saying that this is a necessary consequence of
Christian belief. But historically, it is clear that anti-semitism
has thrived under the church. Many Christians are able to recognize
the excesses of the Church in the past. Calvin is, of course, not
the perfect man. I would hope that Christians would be able to
recognize in some of the passages above words on the Jews which
are ill-considered. Were this commentary to be a sermon preached
today I would hope that the remarks on Jews (and papists) would
be recognized and condemned as inflammatory and inappropriate for
anyone in a position of any influence.
Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
top of page