-5-

The Prophecies of Isaiah

Isaiah carried on his prophetic ministry in Judah during the reigns of four kings for a period of about sixty years (approx. 740 to 680 B.C.). He was, in the estimation of many, the greatest of all the writing prophets. His ranking appears to be justified considering the number of Messianic prophecies that flowed from his inspired quill. He wrote more on the life and ministry of the Messiah than any other prophet. Isaiah foretold the birth (7:14; 9:6); the deity (9:6-7); the death and resurrection (52:13-53:12); and the future Messianic reign (Chapters 2; 11; 65) of Jesus. In this chapter, we will primarily examine the prophecies that relate to His first coming.

The Virgin Birth

Within Isaiah's discourse to King Ahaz, we find the prophecy of the miraculous birth of Jesus:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call his name Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14 Septuagint[LXX]).

The apostle Matthew records Isaiah 7:14 as fulfilled in Jesus:     "Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit...So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,' which is translated, 'God with us.'" (Matt. 1:18, 23).

The anti-missionary raises the following objections against the Christian interpretation of this passage.

Objection: Tovia Singer, head of Jews For Judaism, states that a "sign" is something you see. Since no one could prove the virginity of Mary, it could not have been the sign referred to by the prophet.

Answer: The Torah provides specific legislation for proving one's virginity. According to Moses, if a newlywed woman was accused by her husband of not being a virgin, and the father of the accused brought forth the "...tokens of the damsel's virginity," then the husband was to be punished for bringing an evil name upon a virgin in Israel. However, if these tokens were not produced, the woman was to be executed for playing the harlot in her father's house (Deut. 22:13-21).

Someone who claims this to be unscientific betrays a belief in the power and justice of God. God miraculously backs up any ordinance that He commands. (See Numbers 5:17-28 where water mixed with dust is given to a woman to test the allegation of adultery against her. If guilty, the water would cause her bitter suffering. If not guilty, she would be unharmed from the drink.) If anyone questioned Mary's virginity, her mother and father could have produced definitive proof. History records no such challenge of Mary's virginity.

Objection: Isaiah 7:14 states that the child's name would be called Immanuel. But the angel said to Joseph to call "his name Jesus" (Matt. 1:20). "From this it appears that Immanuel was a different individual from Jesus, for Jesus was in no instance called Immanuel" (Troki, p. 104).

Answer: Here again the anti-missionary manifests a double standard. Troki believes that the child of Isa. 8:3-4 whom the Lord commanded Isaiah to name Maher-shalal-hash-baz is one and the same as the prophesied Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14, "Seeing that these two verses [Isaiah 7:14 & 8:3-4] are in perfect consonance with each other, the child spoken of must needs be the very same,...The intention to express several events by giving several names to one individual, is evident from the double appellation" (Troki, p. 100).

We agree with the anti-missionary that two names ("double appellation") can be given for one individual. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility of Jesus having more than one name whether recorded or not. Although in the New Covenant Jesus is never specifically given the appellation "Immanuel," it does call him  "God" (John 1:1, Titus 2:13) and it also records where He, Himself, promised to be "with us," even after His earthly departure (Matt. 28:19-20) thus fulfilling the definition of that name.

Objection: The occasion for Isaiah's prophecy to Ahaz was to assure him that the allied kings of Syria and Israel (7:5) would not succeed in their plot to invade the kingdom of Judah:  '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' (Isa. 7:16). Had it been the purpose of inspired writ to announce, as the Christians maintain, the advent of Jesus, how could Ahaz be concerned in a sign that could only be realized many centuries after his death, or how could any promise cheer his heart that was not to be fulfilled in his own days? (Troki, p. 97).

Answer: First, it is not unusual for the prophets to speak of an event as if it were to happen in the lifetime of its hearer, when it was, in fact, to be fulfilled thousands of years later. Some prophecies are based deep within a contemporary setting, but actually transcend their context. This is clearly seen in the prophecy of Haggai given to Zerubbabel and the Jewish remnant. After encouraging Zerubbabel (governor of Judah) and the people to rebuild the Lord's temple, the prophet Haggai gave the following Messianic prophecy:

Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying, Who is left among you that saw this house in its first glory?  and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing? Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, saith the Lord; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest; and be strong, all ye people of the land...For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all the nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts...The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts (Haggai 2:3-4, 6-8).

The Israelites who heard Haggai’s prophecy never saw it fulfilled in their lifetime. The glory of Zerubbabel's temple never exceeded that of Solomon's. In fact, 500 years later, Zerubbabel's dilapidated structure was torn down to make way for Herod's. The nations were not overturned in "a little" while. It has been 2400 years since Haggai's discourse and the nations go on as before. Based on these facts, Troki teaches that this prophecy will not find fulfillment until the Messianic age (Troki, pp. 169-70). 

What shall we make of this? Did God deceive the Jewish remnant? No, this is but another example of a prophecy transcending its contemporary setting and reaching forward hundreds of years in time. The prophets always spoke as if the coming of Messiah and His kingdom were just over the horizon. And according to the way the Lord reckons time, it was (Ps. 90:4; 1 Peter 3:8).

Second, it was not unusual for Isaiah to prophesy of certain events which did not take place during the time of the Assyrian kingdom's existence. (Assyria was a world power at the time of Isaiah's discourse to King Ahaz.) Even the great Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 11 predicts that both the Israelite remnant that is left from Assyrian captivity and her sister Judah shall "fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines" back to the land (Isa. 11:14-16). This "second" restoration never happened! The Assyrians and Philistines no longer exist as a people. Yet Isaiah spoke as if the Messiah would come in their day.

Third, if one wants to argue that Haggai's prophecy had a limited, typical fulfillment with Zerubbabel and the Jewish remnant, that is fine. If one argues that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 had a limited, typical fulfillment with Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz, that is fine as well. Some Christians maintain that the prophecy about Immanuel has a dual fulfillment, in Isaiah's son and the future Son Jesus the Messiah.  

Objection: The Hebrew word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 should be translated "young woman," not, as the Christian Bibles translate it "virgin." Only the Hebrew word "betulah" means virgin exclusively.

Answer: It is admitted that betulah denotes unspotted virginity more so than almah. Almah means a very young woman, a woman in puberty. However, in Israel an almah was almost always a virgin because a young woman who was not a virgin at the time of marriage was to be put to death (Deut.22). In a sense this is a moot point, because in his application of Isaiah 7:14, Matthew quotes from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the work of 70 Jewish scholars. They translated the Hebrew text into Greek some 200 years before the birth of Jesus. They use the Greek word "parthenos," which, as a rule, implies unspotted virginity. It is quite possible that they were operating from a Hebrew manuscript that used the word "Betulah."¹

Furthermore, a miraculous birth seems to be implied from the limitless scope of God's offer to Ahaz: "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above" (Isa. 7:11). How could a mundane, everyday birth qualify as such a sign? Let's say that a billionaire told you, "Ask me for anything, the sky is the limit," and then turned around and gave you a dollar bill. Would you see the correlation between the offer and the gift?

Isaiah 9:6-the Mighty God

We learn from Isaiah 8:18 that the children given to Isaiah by prophetic utterance (Shear-jahsub, 7:3; Immanuel, 7:14; and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, 8:1) were for "signs and wonders in Israel." As we have proven, one of these children could have been a sign intended for a future generation within Israel. This interpretation becomes more plausible when we examine the prophecy of Isaiah 9:6-7 which speaks of a divine Son, the Messiah, who was to reign forever on the throne of David.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor of the Mighty God [Hebrew: 'El gibbor' mighty God, 'of the' is not in the text], of the Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever.

This prophecy foretells the birth of the divine Son, Jesus who would be ruler over the entire world. However, Sigal sees this prophecy as being fulfilled in Hezekiah and not Jesus. But we must hold the anti-missionary to his own rule of interpretation. He argues that Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 cannot be Jesus because nowhere in the New Testament was Jesus ever given the specific title "Immanuel." How then can he turn around and say that the child of Isaiah 9:6 is Hezekiah? Surely he knows that Hezekiah was never once called "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father," or "Prince of Peace" in the various accounts of his life and reign. Jesus, in contrast, is called "our great [mighty] God and Savior" (Titus 2:13) in the New Covenant.

By virtue of Jesus' Divine nature, He was able to share the Divine title "El Gibbor" Mighty God (See Isa. 10:21 where God the Father is also called "El Gibbor.") Sigal proposes that "Hezekiah is called 'mighty God' because this name is a sign which foretells God's defense of Jerusalem through the miraculous sudden mass death of Sennacherib's army" (Sigal, p.30). The rationale behind this argument is easily broken down. How could anyone deduce that Hezekiah was called "mighty God" because of what God did through an angel? If anything, the destroying angel would have been called "mighty God" being the actual agent through which God worked. Hezekiah did not lift a finger.

Sigal also suggests that Hezekiah is called "everlasting Father" because this name is a sign which foretells that God will add years to his life, "Go and say to Hezekiah: thus says the Lord, the God of David our Father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add to your days fifteen years (Isa. 38:5)" (Sigal, p. 30).

But how could Hezekiah's reception of 15 more years of life earn him the title "everlasting Father?" "Everlasting" in the Bible always means eternal or age-lasting. Should we suppose that the Ninevites were "everlasting fathers" because their life spans increased due to their repentance (Jonah)?

Undaunted, Sigal states that since Jesus advocates "...killing enemies (Luke 19:27) he cannot be called ruler of peace" (Sigal, p.32). By now, the reader may have noticed the pattern of how the anti-missionary, in his zeal to discredit Jesus' fulfillment of a passage, frequently employs rules that discredit his own candidate. Hezekiah was a king who advocated killing enemies through the vehicle of war (2 Kings 18:8). Moreover, Jesus did not advocate the killing of enemies during His first coming. Luke 19:27 is a parable which speaks of Jesus' return (Luke 19:15)!

Sigal argues, "He who is called the Son of God the Father cannot be 'everlasting Father ' (Sigal, p.32). First, we can reply that He who is called the son of Ahaz cannot be "everlasting Father." Second, Christians do not believe that Jesus is God the Father, nor does this verse say "everlasting God the Father." Joseph was called the "Father of Pharaoh", meaning that he was ruler over his kingdom (Gen 45:8). Through Jesus God the Father will ruler over all the kingdoms of the earth (Isa. 9, 11). Jesus is also the "everlasting Father" in that he had no beginning and through him God created all things (Gen. 1:26; Heb. 1:3; John 1:3). Hezekiah, being a mere human, could not be said to be the "everlasting Father" of anything. He did not originate or create anything. He merely occupied David's throne like other kings before and after him. His reforms, though impressive, did not even equal those of Josiah.

No End to His Kingdom

"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order and to establish it with judgment and with justice from hence forth even forever" (Isaiah 9:6).

The fact that the Son who rules on the throne of David would control a government that would "have no end" proves conclusively the Messianic interpretation of this passage. Hezekiah's rule was limited to the southern kingdom of Judah. He did not even attempt to regain the territory lost by the ten-tribe Northern kingdom. So how could it be said that his government increased unto "no end"? But the Messiah, Son of David, was to see his government increase throughout the whole earth as "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Isaiah 11:9). Sitting upon David's throne, this Messiah would be judge over the whole earth (Isa. 2:1-4; 9:7; 11:3-4), "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth...Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him" (Psalm 72:8, 11).

The Messiah was to establish David's throne "forever" not just for the brief 29 years that Hezekiah reigned over the tiny kingdom of Judah. To this Sigal responds, "Hezekiah's kingdom is declared to be forever, for through his efforts to cleanse the Temple ritual of idolatry, even though apostasy followed under his son Manasseh, the Davidic dynasty was once more confirmed as the only true kingly rule that God would accept over his people 'for henceforth and forever'" (Sigal, p.31). According to the context, the government and reign were to last "forever". Nothing is said about confirmation here. If Hezekiah's brief reign of righteousness constitutes a confirmation of God's kingly and eternal rule over His people, would not the wicked reign of an apostate king disannul its eternal aspect? If not, why not?

It is objected that Jesus never reigned over the whole earth; therefore, He could not be the Son referred to by Isaiah. This does not logically follow. Verse 6 mentions the birth of the Son and verse 7 outlines the nature and extent of His political reign. The prophet does not address the time interval between the two. Jesus' birth and presentation to Israel represents the presentation of the Son. This occurred during his first coming "the time of God's favor." The New Covenant prophesies that during the time following His Second coming He will assume the throne of David and rule over the whole earth (Matthew 25:31-46; Rev. 2:26). (The plausibility of two comings of the Messiah is discussed in chapter 17). Who is this divine Son that was to cause Israel to stumble? He is none other than the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12.

< Chapter 4 | Chapter 6 >