1. In my reading today of Messianism Within the Scriptural Scrolls of Isaiah, Randall Heskett talks about John Calvin’s interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, a passage that says a young woman conceives and bears a son, and she will call his name “Immanuel” (“God with us”). For Calvin’s commentary on this chapter, see here.
Matthew 1:23 applies that passage to Jesus, but many have disputed that claim, maintaining that the passage has a different meaning in its immediate context. Isaiah 7 is about the Syro-Ephraimite alliance, which was about to invade Judah in the eighth century B.C.E. Isaiah told King Ahaz of Judah to ask for a sign, and Ahaz refuses. Isaiah then says that the LORD will give “to you” (plural) a sign: a young woman conceives and bears a son, and she will call his name “Immanuel.” Isaiah says that the child will eat butter and honey, and, before he reaches the age of being able to distinguish good and evil, the Syro-Ephraimite alliance that Judah fears will fall. For many scholars, the child “Immanuel” lived in the time of King Ahaz, for Immanuel was a sign to that king and his nation.
Jews in John Calvin’s day interpreted the child of Isaiah 7:14 to be Ahaz’s son, Hezekiah, but Calvin doesn’t buy that. Calvin states that “those who apply the passage to Hezekiah are excessively impudent; for he must have been a full grown man when Jerusalem was besieged.” Calvin argues that Isaiah 7:14 is a direct prophecy of Jesus Christ. Here are four points that he makes:
First, Calvin argues that “Immanuel” is a sign, not to Ahaz, who rejected God’s offer of a sign and thus (in Calvin’s eyes) did not receive one. Rather, the sign is “for you”, which is plural. Calvin interprets that to mean people like Ahaz. For Calvin, Isaiah is saying that God’s plan to send Jesus as the Messiah will be fulfilled, notwithstanding the plots of the Syro-Ephraimite alliance.
Second, Calvin maintains that almah in Isaiah 7:14 means “virgin”. He says that almah comes from alam, “to hide”, and he applies this to the tendency of virgins to hide themselves out of modesty. While Calvin acknowledges that almah can mean “young woman”, he prefers “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14, since why would it be so remarkable if a young woman conceived? A virgin birth, however, would be noteworthy!
Third, Calvin applies to Christ’s humanity Isaiah 7:15′s statement that Immanuel will eat butter and honey, that he might know how to choose good and refuse evil. Calvin states that Jews of Jesus’ day fed babies butter and honey, and that Jesus in his human (but not his divine) nature as a child was deprived of understanding, and had to grow in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52).
Fourth, Calvin interprets Isaiah 7:16, which states that the kings of the Syro-Ephraimite alliance will die before the child shall know how to choose good and refuse evil. Calvin does not believe that the child here is Jesus, but rather the children of Ahaz’s time: the Syro-Ephraimite alliance will collapse before the generic child of Judah has learned to distinguish right from wrong. According to Calvin, had Isaiah 7:16 wanted to convey that the child was Immanuel, it would have said “this child”, not “the child”.
2. In my reading today of Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah, Jacob Neusner says on page 132 that, according to the Mishnah, the village was the “mirror image” of the Temple. He states: “The boundary lines prevent free entry into the Temple, so they restrict free egress from the village. On the holy day what one may do in the Temple is precisely what one may not do in the village.” I think of animal sacrifices: the priests could kill an animal and offer it to God on the Sabbath, whereas your average Jew couldn’t even cook meat. According to Neusner, perfection comes through the union of opposites, as both the Temple and the village are sanctified.
3. In my post, More on Sobran, I was saying that the mainstream media did not mention the passing of Joseph Sobran, the conservative columnist who influenced many. I learned this morning that I was wrong.
Here’s an article in The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/02/AR2010100203959.html
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/books/02sobran.html
The Post article says that Sobran praised the publication Instauration, which (in Sobran’s words) which, was “openly and almost unremittingly hostile to blacks, Jews, and Mexican and Oriental immigrants.” But, when I googled “Sobran AND Instauration”, I found that his praise of the publication was qualified, meaning he didn’t endorse its racist views. But you can see the thin line Sobran walked: he himself may not have been a bigot, but he associated with people of questionable reputation.
Here’s a tribute to Sobran from John McManus of the John Birch Society, for whose publication Sobran wrote after his exit from National Review: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/biography/4762-the-passing-of-joseph-sobran
And, to let out my inner Frum (as Felix would say), here’s David Frum’s brief tribute, which acknowledges Sobran’s “wit and talent”, even as it says that he was “distorted by terrible prejudices”: http://www.frumforum.com/joe-sobran