The Artscroll on Isaiah 7-9

I said in my post yesterday that I will write a post about the orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary's treatment of Isaiah 7:14. The Artscroll draws from rabbinic and medieval Jewish sources as it presents options for the meaning of verses.

In reviewing the Artscroll's treatment of Isaiah 7:14, it turned out that it was not much to write home about. Overall, it was what one might expect from a Jewish commentary: Immanuel was a child born in the eighth century B.C.E., either to the wife of Isaiah or of King Ahaz. On a slightly interesting note, the commentary said that Immanuel was born after the destruction of the Syro-Ephraimite alliance that threatened Judah and the Davidic line, whereas the conventional view is that he was born before that, allowing stages in his life to be temporal markers for when destruction would occur for the Syro-Ephraimite alliance. The reference in Isaiah 7:15 to the child eating curds and honey refers to the prosperity that would emerge after the threat of the Syro-Ephraimite alliance was already removed.

The Artscroll also provided some homiletical details: God was punishing Ahaz with the Syro-Ephraimite invasion because of Ahaz's sins, yet God delivered Ahaz due to the merit of David his ancestor. Also, when Ahaz refused to ask God for a sign, his reason was that he did not want God to get any glory. Ahaz hated God that much.

I vaguely recalled that, when I read the commentary a few years back, it did have an unusual twist that stood out to me. In rereading the comments on Isaiah 7-8, the twist was that the Artscroll largely portrayed Isaiah 7-8 as a message of hope. Many interpret Isaiah 7-8 to be about God's deliverance of Judah from the Syro-Ephraimite alliance, only for Judah to suffer severely at the hands of the Assyrians, the ones from whom Judah sought assistance. But the Artscroll, through its translation and application of the verses, focuses the chapters on the theme that God will shatter the Assyrians and deliver Judah, which would occur during the reign of the righteous King Hezekiah. Judah could have hope because Immanuel, God is with them!

Yet, actually, in comparing the Artscroll with how the standard historical-critical HarperCollins Study Bible treats the chapters, the two are not that far apart in terms of their overall interpretation, but only in their emphasis. The HarperCollins Study Bible focuses on God's employing Assyria to judge sinful Judah----as a Bible professor of mine said years ago in interpreting Isaiah 7-8, God does not provide cheap grace, but God's presence can entail judgment and purification, not just comfort and deliverance. Still, HarperCollins holds that ultimate deliverance of Judah is part of those chapters, however small.

The Artscroll, as said above, focuses on deliverance, but it cannot escape the numerous passages in First Isaiah about God's judgment of Judah for her sins at the hands of the Assyrians. The Artscroll, in a few places, lands on the view that God used the Assyrians to discipline Judah, even though God ultimately delivered her.

To add some confusion to the mix, in Isaiah 7:22, Isaiah predicts that there will be an abundance of milk and people remaining in the land will eat curds and honey. The Artscroll treats that verse in a "glass-half-full" manner, whereas HarperCollins employs a "glass-half-empty" approach. The former applies it to the prosperity that will exist under the reign of Hezekiah after God's defeat of Assyria, whereas the latter considers it a result of the Assyrian onslaught. Yet, even HarperCollins interprets the butter and honey that Immanuel eats in Isaiah 7:15 as a rare delicacy (Stephen Geller at Jewish Theological Seminary called it "ice cream"), while it appears to interpret the curds and honey of 7:22 more negatively. (Looking at the verse, the point may be that, as a result of the Assyrian invasion, there will be more cattle around producing milk on the rather desolate land, so the fewer people who remain will be eating lots of butter and honey.)

Also of interest was the Artscroll's interpretation of the child of Isaiah 9: wonderful, counselor, mighty God, etc., whose kingdom shall have no end. I was already aware that standard Jewish interpretation interprets that child to be Hezekiah. The grand titles, according to the Artscroll, relate to the glorious deed of God in defeating Sennacherib. But did not Hezekiah's kingdom come to an end? The Artscroll offers two possible answers to that. One, Hezekiah would have been the Messiah had he given God glory after the fall of Sennacherib, but Hezekiah failed to do so. Second, ad-olam refers to the duration of Hezekiah's life, not to eternity: Hezekiah's righteous reign would last to the end of his life.

This post is less detailed than my post yesterday, but it is a brief repository of what I learned from the Artscroll's interpretation of Isaiah 7-9.

Edward J. Young on Isaiah 7:14

I have deciding to resume blogging, occasionally, because I have found that reading my old blog posts reminds me of what I have read, which, unfortunately, I tend to forget.

In this post, I will summarize Edward J. Young’s interpretation of Isaiah 7-8, particularly as it relates to the “virgin birth” prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. I will not talk about his discussion of whether the Hebrew word almah in Isaiah 7:14 actually means “virgin.” My main interest in this post is how Young believes that Isaiah 7:14 relates to events in the eighth century B.C.E., while also being a prophecy about Jesus Christ.

Some brief background: decades ago, I listened to a cassette tape entitled “How to Answer a Christian Missionary” by Rabbi Michael Skobac of Jews for Judaism. Skobac argues that the “prophecies” in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament that the New Testament and Christians apply to Jesus originally meant nothing of the sort. Isaiah 7:14, which Matthew 1:23 affirms was fulfilled in the virgin birth of Jesus, actually in its original historical context concerned a child born in the eighth century B.C.E., the time of the prophet Isaiah. Syria and Northern Israel, which we will call the Syro-Ephraimite alliance, were threatening to invade Judah and to topple the Davidic king of Judah, Ahaz, who was frightened. The prophet Isaiah told Ahaz to ask for a sign, which Ahaz refused to do, so Isaiah proceeded to offer a sign anyway: an almah would give birth to a son, and she would call that son “Immanuel,” which means “God with us.” The child would eat butter and honey, and before the child reaches the age when he knows to choose good and refuse evil, the Syro-Ephaimite alliance will be decimated.

For Rabbi Skobac, Isaiah 7:14 in its original context was about events in the eighth century B.C.E. The child was someone who lived in that particular time, for he was specifically a sign to Ahaz about events that were occurring then and there. Events in that very child’s life would serve as a marker for when an eighth century event, the destruction of the Syro-Ephraimite alliance, would take place. How can Jesus, who was born centuries later, serve as a sign for Ahaz about events in Ahaz’s time?

Not surprisingly, some Christian interpreters have maintained that the child of Isaiah 7:14 was both a child in the eighth century B.C.E. and Jesus Christ, the former being a type of the latter. My suspicion is that they think that the time-bound aspect of Isaiah 7:15-16 is inescapable: a stage in that child’s life is tied to events in the eighth century B.C.E., acting as a sign to Ahaz as to when the destruction of the Syro-Ephraimite alliance would take place. Isaiah 7:14, therefore, must concern a child in the eighth century B.C.E., even if these interpreters’ Christian commitment entitles them also to relate Isaiah 7:14 to Christ.

But Edward J. Young, a conservative Old Testament scholar, took a different route. For Young, Isaiah 7:14 was originally a direct Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ, a child who would be born of a virgin. Young contends that the impending attack of Judah by the Syro-Ephraimite alliance indeed was relevant to the first coming of Christ, for, if the Syro-Ephraimite alliance succeeded in its overthrow of the Davidic dynasty, that would stop the coming of the Messiah, who was to be part (more, the culmination) of the Davidic dynasty. Isaiah, in this interpretation, was assuring Ahaz that the Syro-Ephraimite alliance would fail to overthrow Judah and its Davidic king, for the Messianic child would indeed be born. God guarantees it.

Regarding the time-bound aspect of Isaiah 7:15-16, Young holds that Isaiah was tying a stage in Christ’s life to the Syro-Ephraimite attack: within the same amount of time that the future Christ would mature from being an infant to one with moral discernment, a few years, the Syro-Ephraimite alliance would be destroyed. In short, Young is treating Isaiah 7:15-16 as an analogy: centuries later, the child Christ will mature from infancy to moral discernment within a few years, and it will likewise be a few years during Ahaz’s reign before the Syro-Ephraimite alliance is shattered. For Young, Isaiah is highlighting the amount of time, not treating an eighth century child as a temporal marker for an eighth century event.

As for the child eating butter and honey, some scholars have interpreted that to mean that the child will eat rudimentary food during the Assyrian onslaught on Judah, a view that treats the child as an eighth century figure. But Young states that butter and honey were a royal diet, so Isaiah 7:15 highlights Jesus’s royal status as Davidic king.

Questions lingered in my mind. First, in Isaiah 8:4, a child of Isaiah, named Maher-Shal-Hash-Baz, serves as a marker for events related to the Syro-Ephraimite invasion. Before Maher-Shal-Hash-Baz reaches the age when he can cry “my father and my mother,” the Assyrians will have destroyed the Syro-Ephraimite alliance. Later, in Isaiah 8:18, Isaiah refers to children the LORD gave him as signs and wonders in Israel. Would not the natural interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 be that Immanuel was another son of Isaiah who served as a sign and (in Maher-Shal-Hash-Baz’s case) a temporal marker to eighth century Judah, like Shear-Jeshub and Maher-Shal-Hash-Baz?

Second, the name “Immanuel” occurs again in Isaiah 8:8, 10, as Isaiah describes the destruction that will be wreaked on Judah by the Assyrians. Does that not indicate that “Immanuel” is a figure from the eighth century, since his relevance is to the eighth century?

Regarding the first question, Young acknowledges that there is a similarity between Isaiah 7:15-16 and Isaiah 8:4, but he still believes that Immanuel is Jesus Christ, whereas Maher-Shal-Hash-Baz is a son of Isaiah. He observes that the mother names Immanuel, whereas Isaiah names Maher-Shal-Hash-Baz, so the latter is obviously Isaiah’s son, whereas that is not apparent with Immanuel. Young also sees Maher-Shal-Hash-Baz as a guarantee that the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 will find fulfillment: the Judahites will see the collapse of the Syro-Ephraimite alliance within the time-span of Maher-Shal-Hash-Baz’s childhood, and that can assure them that God will fulfill God’s promise in Isaiah 7:14 to send the Messiah. In addition, although Young treats Isaiah 7:14 as a direct prophecy about Jesus Christ, typology still plays a role in his interpretation of Isaiah 7-8. In Young’s view, God’s deliverance of Judah from the Syro-Ephraimite alliance is a type of God’s larger deliverance of Israel and humanity through Jesus Christ.

On the second question, Young asserts that Isaiah 8 is describing Assyria’s decimation of Immanuel’s land, the land of the Messiah. Immanuel, “God with us,” is relevant to the eighth century B.C.E. but also to God’s larger purpose for Israel and humanity in Jesus Christ. God being with Israel can give Judah assurance within the dark events of the eighth century, and yet Jesus Christ is an essential part of God’s larger presence with Israel.

Moreover, in a footnote on page 307 of Young’s Isaiah commentary (volume 1), Young wryly states as he interacts with a historical critic: “‘To base a far-reaching construction of Messianic belief on so ambiguous a passage is a mistake’ (Gray). But would Isaiah have named the land after one of his own sons or after some hypothetical person? There is a seriousness in the passage that is overlooked by those who refuse to accept the Messianic reference.”

For Young, the gravity of the Immanuel reference in Isaiah 8 entails that Immanuel is more than a mere son of Isaiah. This argument is similar to a Christian argument that the suffering servant in Isaiah 40-55 must be more than an anonymous prophet, for the predictions that surround the servant are too grand for that and are more likely Messianic.

My purpose here is to present Young’s argument for personal reference, and on the chance that others may find my summary useful. I am not taking a side in Jewish-Christian apologetic and counter-apologetic polemics, so do not try to pigeon-hole me. In a future post, I will summarize how the orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary engages Isaiah 7:14.