The Flat-Earth Bible

by Robert J. Schadewald

When I first became interested in the flat-earthers in the early 1970s, I was surprised to learn that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible. I have since assembled and read an extensive collection of flat-earth literature. The Biblical arguments for flat-earthism that follow come mainly from my reading of flat-earth literature, augmented by my own reading of the Bible.

Except among Biblical inerrantists, it is generally agreed that the Bible describes an immovable earth. At the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, geocentrist James N. Hanson told me there are hundreds of scriptures that suggest the earth is immovable. I suspect some must be a bit vague, but here are a few obvious texts:

• I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
• Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
• Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
• Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
• Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Suffice to say that the earth envisioned by flat-earthers is as immovable as any geocentrist could desire. Most (perhaps all) scriptures commonly cited by geocentrists have also been cited by flat-earthers. The flat-earth view is geocentricity with further restrictions.

Like geocentrists, flat-earth advocates often give long lists of texts. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, founder of the modern flat-earth movement, cited 76 scriptures in the last chapter of his monumental second edition of Earth not a Globe. Apostle Anton Darms, assistant to the Reverend Wilbur Glenn Voliva, America's best known flat-earther, compiled 50 questions about the creation and the shape of the earth, bolstering his answers with up to 20 scriptures each. Rather than presenting an exhaustive compendium of flat-earth scriptures, I focus on those which seem to me the strongest....

Scriptural quotes, unless otherwise noted, are from the New English Bible. Hebrew and Greek translations are from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages. The Bible is a composite work, so there is no a priori reason why the cosmology assumed by its various writers should be relatively consistent, but it is. The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book.

This is hardly surprising. As neighbors, the ancient Hebrews had the Egyptians to the southwest and the Babylonians to the northeast. Both civilizations had flat-earth cosmologies. The Biblical cosmology closely parallels the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, and it may also draw upon Egyptian cosmology.

The Babylonian universe was shaped like a modern domed stadium. The Babylonians considered the earth essentially flat, with a continental mass surrounded by ocean. The vault of the sky was a physical object resting upon the ocean's waters (and perhaps also upon pillars). Sweet (salt-free) waters below the Earth sometimes manifest themselves as springs. The Egyptian universe was also enclosed, but it was rectangular instead of round. Indeed, it was shaped much like an old-fashioned steamer trunk. (The Egyptians pictured the goddess Nut stretched across the sky as the enclosing dome.) What was the Hebrew view of the universe?

The Order of Creation

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was "without form and void (Genesis 1:2)." On the second day, a vault, the "firmament" of the King James version, was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed "in" (not "above") the vault.

The Vault of Heaven

The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word "firmament" appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning "beaten out." In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, "Can you beat out (raqa) the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?"

Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:

• Job 9:8, "...who by himself spread out the heavens (shamayim)..."
• Psalm 19:1, "The heavens (shamayim) tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven (raqiya) reveals his handiwork."
• Psalm 102:25, "...the heavens (shamayim) were thy handiwork."
• Isaiah 45:12, "I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens (shamayim) and caused all their host to shine..."
• Isaiah 48:13, "...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky (shamayim)..."

If these verses are about a mere illusion of a vault, they are surely much ado about nothing. Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be lofty. It literally means the sky. Other passages complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome. God "sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth (chuwg), whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies (shamayim) like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in..." (Isaiah 40:22). Chuwg literally means "circle" or "encompassed." By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God "walks to and fro on the vault of heaven (chuwg)." In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk. Likewise, the context in both cases requires elevation. In Isaiah, the elevation causes the people below to look small as grasshoppers. In Job, God's eyes must penetrate the clouds to view the doings of humans below. Elevation is also implied by Job 22:12: "Surely God is at the zenith of the heavens (shamayim) and looks down on all the stars, high as they are."

This picture of the cosmos is reinforced by Ezekiel's vision. The Hebrew word raqiya appears five times in Ezekiel, four times in Ezekiel 1:22-26 and once in Ezekiel 10:1. In each case the context requires a literal vault or dome. The vault appears above the "living creatures" and glitters "like a sheet of ice." Above the vault is a throne of sapphire.... Seated on the throne is "a form in human likeness," which is radiant and "like the appearance of the glory of the Lord." In short, Ezekiel saw a vision of God sitting throned on the vault of heaven, as described in Isaiah 40:22.

The Shape of the Earth

Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth ... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to "the earth's farthest bounds," but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world (cosmos) in their glory." Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..."

The Celestial Bodies

The Hebrews considered the celestial bodies relatively small. The Genesis creation story indicates the size and importance of the earth relative to the celestial bodies in two ways, first by their order of creation, and second by their positional relationships. They had to be small to fit inside the vault of heaven. Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12, which says that the sun stood still "in Gibeon" and the moon "in the Vale of Aijalon."

Further, the Bible frequently presents celestial bodies as exotic living beings. For example, "In them [the heavens], a tent is fixed for the sun, who comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, rejoicing like a strong man to run his race. His rising is at one end of the heavens, his circuit touches their farthest ends; and nothing is hidden from his heat" (Psalm 19:4-6). The stars are anthropomorphic demigods. When the earth's cornerstone was laid "the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted aloud (Job 38:7)." The morning star is censured for trying to set his throne above that of other stars:

You thought in your own mind, I will scale the heavens; I will set my throne high above the stars of God, I will sit on the mountain where the gods meet in the far recesses of the north. I will rise high above the cloud-banks and make myself like the most high (Isaiah 14:13-14).

Deuteronomy 4:15-19 recognizes the god-like status of stars, noting that they were created for other peoples to worship.

Stars can fall from the skies according to Daniel 8:10 and Matthew 24:29. The same idea is found in the following extracts from Revelation 6:13-16:

... the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up ... they called out to the mountains and the crags, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne..."

This is consistent with the Hebrew cosmology previously described, but it is ludicrous in the light of modern astronomy. If one star let alone all the stars in the sky "fell" on the earth, no one would be hollering from any mountain or crag. The writer considered the stars small objects, all of which could fall to the earth without eradicating human life. He also viewed the sky as a physical object. The stars are inside the sky, and they fall before the sky opens. When it is whisked away, it reveals the One throned above (see Isaiah 40:22).

source :www.islamawareness.net

Immanuel of the Bible: Is it a Prediction for Christ (sws)? (II)

By :Studying-Islam

2. The word ‘VIRGIN’, and the whole story about it
The author of the Gospel according to Matthew has offered this prophecy of Isaiah as a proof of the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ from VIRGIN MARY in the following words:

22. Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying,

23. "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD IS WITH US."¹

The whole of the edifice of the argument here, stands on the word ‘VIRGIN’. And if it be established that the word ‘VIRGIN’ of the quotation from Isaiah recorded in the Gospel according to Matthew by its author is a mistake [it is a misinterpretation of the word "ALMAH" of the Hebrew Old Testament, which does not mean "VIRGIN"; and simply means "A WOMAN OF MARRIAGE-ABLE AGE"]; the whole edifice of the argument will be dashed to ground. Some of the authorities are given below to elaborate the theme:

Today’s English Version gives the words "a young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "A virgin". It explains "a young woman" in the footnote "k" as follows:
YOUNG WOMAN: The Hebrew word here translated "young woman" is not the specific term for "virgin," but refers to any young woman of marriageable age. The use of "virgin" in Mt 1.23 reflects a Greek translation of the Old Testament [Septuagint], made some 500 years after Isaiah.²

The New English Bible also gives the words "A young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "The virgin".³

The Reader’s Bible, in the same way, records the words "a young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "a virgin".⁴

Revised Standard Version (Catholic edition), as well, writes the words "a young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "a virgin".⁵

The New Rev. Stand. Versn. (Cath.Ed. for India), has also followed suit and has given the words "the young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "the virgin".⁶

The New Oxford Annotated Bible has also done the same. It has recorded the words "the young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, and the words "the virgin" in Matthew I:23.⁷ It has also afforded a footnote as follows: ‘Young woman, Hebrew "‘almah," feminine of "‘elem," young man (1Sam 17.56; 20.22); the word appears in Gen 24.43; Ex 2.8; Ps 68.25, and elsewhere, where it is translated "young woman," "girl," "maiden.’⁸

The New Jerusalem Bible is of the same view. It has given the words "the young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "the virgin".⁹

It would be appreciated that in all the above versions, the original Hebrew word of the Bible "ALMAH" has faithfully been translated in the Book of Isaiah as "a/the young woman". But when taken to the Gospel according to Matthew in the New Testament, each of the above translators has mistranslated and misquoted it as "VIRGIN". It is not just and faithful rendering of the original Hebrew word "ALMAH" of the O.T. of the Bible. It is not without purpose. It is a clear evidence of the malafide approach on the part of the translators. Some of the examples as to how some of the expositors of the Bible have tried to twist and confuse this very simple matter, will be helpful to understand it:
Explaining the sign of Isaiah in the foot-notes, the writer of Christian Community Bible, has very cleverly tried to confound the reader rather than to expound the matter. Here is his exposition:

Why is the Virgin mentioned? The term used in Isaiah does not actually mean the Virgin but rather the young girl and when it was used as such, it simply referred to the young queen. [This statement should carefully be understood and kept in mind before proceeding further to experience and observe the wonderful art of the commentator to prove a thing "an apple", whom he had introduced as "a turnip" a short while ago. (His paragraph is continuing without any break or any word being omitted.)] Here Isaiah is referring to the future mother of the King-Messiah, and we know that she was the Virgin Mary. But, even before this amazing birth of the Virgin’s son, many believing Jews suspected that the Messiah’s origin would be extraordinary. If God was constantly reproaching believers for not loving him exclusively, how could the Messiah’s mother be a woman of many loves?

Besides, according to an expression in their language, they used to say the Virgin of Israel or the Virgin daughter of Zion to refer to the people and to the holy city (Is 37:22). And so to them, the verse: the Virgin will give birth sounded like: the believing community will give birth to the Messiah. Mary had to be a virgin, and she also represented all the believers who had hoped for the Saviour with a virgin heart (see Lk 1:31). It is worth noting that, even before Jesus, the Greek translation of the Bible had already substituted the virgin for the original term young girl.

It may surprise us to have Isaiah announce this liberation of God’s people as an answer from God to Ahaz, or, as something that would happen within a few years [stress added. It may be noted that the simple interpretation of the italicized clause can be nothing else than: "The sign is to come into force within a few years of its utterance by Isaiah. It is not meant to be fulfilled more than c. 734 years later, through the birth of Jesus Christ."]. But Isaiah was speaking as a prophet who combines in one vision events of the same nature, although occurring at different times [Here again, it is to be noted that the commentator is arbitrarily attributing the theme of ‘double application’ to the plain and unequivocal prophecy of Isaiah without a slightest hint to that effect by the prophet]. In some sense, those gloomy years were announcing future crisis, misfortunes and sins which formed one whole with the tragedies that would precede the coming of the kingdom of God.

Isaiah gives sign to King Ahaz, to his heirs, David’s descendants (1:13), and to all who live in a world devastated by sin, and this sign points to Christ. Just as in the lost earthly Paradise, we have the image of a woman, or of the son of a woman who will crush the serpent’s head, here we have another image, that of the virgin with her son, God-with-us. Immanuel suffers for his brothers’ and sisters’ sins, and that is why he can reconcile us with God. [If it be the interpretation, then what a distortion would be!]

Isaiah’s contemporaries, obviously, did not understand all of this. It is only with time that the many meanings of this ‘sign’ will be understood. The word sign as used by Isaiah, can also be translated as a marvelous event.¹⁰

The New American Bible has afforded in its foot-note to the relevant verse a somewhat similar interpretation but in a moderate manner:

The sign proposed by Isaiah was concerned with the preservation of Judah in the midst of distress (cf 7, 15.17), but more especially with the fulfillment of God’s earlier promise to David (2 Sm 7, 12-16) in the coming of Immanuel (meaning, "With us is God") as the ideal king (cf 9, 5-6; 11,1-5). The Church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother. The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future king Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman (Hebrew almah). The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which alone could fulfill the divinely given terms of Immanuel’s mission, and in which the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God was to fulfill also the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine wisdom.¹¹

The writer of The Living Bible (‘The Way’), in his foot-note to the verse, provides the strange excuse for using the word ‘VIRGIN’ in his translation of the verse:

The controversial Hebrew word used here sometimes means "virgin" and sometimes "young woman." Its immediate use here refers to Isaiah’s young wife and her newborn son (Isaiah 8:1-4). This, of course, was not a virgin birth. God’s sign was that before this child was old enough to talk (verse 4) the two invading kings would be destroyed. However, the Gospel of Matthew (1:23) tells us that there was a further fulfillment of this prophecy, in that a virgin (Mary) conceived and bore a son, Immanuel, the Christ. We have therefore properly used this higher meaning, "virgin," in verse 14, as otherwise the Matthew account loses its significance [stress added without any further comment, as it speaks of its intent of itself].¹²

The writer of the foot-notes to the Contemporary English Version has adopted a more wise and modest view-point:

In this context the difficult Hebrew word did not imply a virgin birth. However, in the Greek translation made about 200 B.C. and used by the early Christians, the word parthenos had a double meaning. While the translator took it to mean "young woman," Matthew understood it to mean "virgin" and quoted the passage (Matthew 1.23) because it was the appropriate description of Mary, the mother of Jesus [stress added. What a prejudiced approach to forge the meanings of the ‘sign’ in favour of one’s whims!].¹³

The writer of the foot-notes of the New Testament; Standard Edition clarifies the theme a little more:

The Hebrew word almah means a young woman of marriageable age (masculine, elem). The reason for the choice of parthenos, ‘virgin’ in the LXX is not known (cf. Acts 17:2). Later Greek versions read neanis ‘a young person’. Is.7:14 does not refer to a birth by a virgin. The LXX even uses parthenos for one who is not a virgin (cf. Gen 34:3). Traditionally virginity before the marriage was highly valued. Education and counselling were given systematically to young to ensure that they appreciated the need to avoid pre-marital sex. Those who broke their virginity before marriage were heavily penalized by their age sets, and lost their reputation and chances of finding a marriage partner of their choice. In some tribes both the girl and the boy were killed. Conception prior to marriage without a male partner (Mat 1:20; Lk 1:31) renders Mary different in a unique way. Matthew and Luke emphasize Mary’s partial independence from ancestral control and her direct relationship to God. The insertion of references to four women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba) along with Mary in the Genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:3-6) could also serve the same purpose.¹⁴

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels has tried to understand the theme in a more realistic and reasonable way:

It may now be taken for granted that the word ALMAH translated ‘virgin’ in the EV should be more correctly rendered ‘young woman.’ The proper Hebrew term for ‘virgin’ is BETULAH, though even this is used in JI 18 for ‘young widow.’ All that can with certainty be said of the word used by Isaiah is that it indicates a young woman of marriageable age, but says nothing whether she is married or not. Accordingly the terms of the prophecy do not warrant us in interpreting the sign as the prodigy of a virgin conception. (...).

(...). It is clear, in the first place, that the prophet is referring to something in the near future, otherwise the sign could have conveyed no message to the king, all the more that his difficulty was urgent. (....).

The question accordingly arises: In what form precisely did the sign consist? The stress may either lie on the ALMAH, or the son, or the name given to him, or a combination of these. The traditional interpretation has, of course, thrown the stress on the first of these; for it the sign lay in the virgin-conception. But when the true sense of ALMAH is understood, this interpretation becomes impossible [stress added]. (....) the name Immanuel expresses the mother’s conviction that God is with His people. The sign is no prodigy in this case. For against the king’s unbelief and his obstinate refusal to accept a sign there arises the mother’s impressive faith, which confronted danger without dismay, and uttered her conviction of God’s presence with His people in the name she gave her son. The personality of the mother is equally with that of the son of no importance for the sign; that consists in the mother’s faith and the son’s name. Accordingly it is better to translate ‘a young woman’ instead of ‘the young woman.’ Isaiah, however, does not mean precisely that any young woman, who is shortly about to conceive and give birth to a son, may call his name Immanuel. While he has no definite woman in his mind, he predicts that some young woman will, in the future, conceive and bear a son, to whom she will give the name Immanuel. His language is not that of hypothesis but of prediction.

The way is now clear to discuss St. Matthew’s use of the passage. (...). It is quite plain that this interpretation was in general very little controlled by the original sense of the OT passage quoted. It was of a largely polemical character, since it was necessary, against the cavilling¹⁵ of the Jews, to prove the Messiahship of Jesus from the OT. Accordingly the Hebrew scriptures were ransacked¹⁶ to find parallels with the life of Christ [stress added]; and it is not unlikely that, at a quite early period, collections of these passages were drawn up for controversial use [stress added].¹⁷

A New Commentary on Holy Scripture explains the word virgin as follows:

The Hebrew word (‘almah) means ‘a young woman,’ and if emphasis on virginity had been required[,] another word (bethulah) would have been used. LXX renders parthenos, which does mean virgin, but there is no evidence that any significance was attached to it before our Lord’s birth. This is an important point, since hostile critics hold that the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth was suggested by this amongst other passages. The exact contrary seems to be true: our Lord was born of a Virgin, and in consequence the passage applied to Him. The Jewish commentators were undecided as to whether the prophet is referring to his own wife or the wife of Ahaz.¹⁸

Peake’s Commentary adopts "a young woman" for granted and does not even mention the word "virgin":

Indicating a young woman [stress added], possibly among the company present, certainly known to them, he declares that she is pregnant and will soon bear a son who will be named Immanuel (‘God is with us’). Probably the young woman [stress added] was one of the wives of the king. If so, Isaiah’s words are an announcement of the birth of a royal son (...).¹⁹

Dummelow’s Commentary records also the same views and takes the translation "virgin" as incorrect. It notes:

It may candidly be admitted that the miraculous conception of Jesus has not the same evidence for it as the other miracles, (....).In the Heb. it is `almah, i.e. ‘a young woman,’ not necessarily a virgin. The LXX, however, renders it parthenos, i.e. ‘virgin,’ and hence many have incorrectly supposed that Isaiah prophesied the Virgin Birth [stress added].²⁰

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary has afforded a useful discussion on the theme:

Hebrew lexicographers are agreed that ‘almah is from the root ‘alam, "to be [sexually] mature," and that the word ‘almah denotes a "young woman," implying ability to bear children. Both ‘almah and ‘elem, the masculine form of the word, clearly denote physical maturity, but there is no absolute evidence as to whether they imply virginity or indicate marital status. It may be noted, however, that in S. of Sol. 6:8,9 "virgins," ‘alamoth (plural of ‘almah), are classed with "queens" and "concubines" in contrast with an "undefiled" young woman. According to the Hebrew the ‘almah of Isa. 7:14 may already have conceived (see below, "Shall conceive), and if she were yet a virgin when Isaiah spoke we would then be confronted with another miraculous birth similar to that of Jesus, which would create a profound theological problem.

The Hebrew term specifically descriptive of virginity is bethulah, which means strictly "virgin" and nothing else in the 50 instances where it appears in the OT. In Bible usage a bethulah was, by definition, a marriageable woman, whether young or old, though probably young; who had remained separate from men. Not once is the word ‘almah used with reference to virginity as bethulah and its derivative forms are used. Bethulah has no cognate masculine equivalent, but is often coupled with bachur, "choice young man," or "excellent young man." Bachur and bethulah depict the highest Hebrew ideals of young manhood and young woman-hood, as ‘elem and ‘almah denote physical maturity. Without a single exception, where moral integrity and virginity are clearly referred to, bachur and bethulah are used; ‘elem and ‘almah are never so used.

(...).Isaiah uses bethulah altogether five times (chs. 23:4, 12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5), and had he intended the "young woman" of ch. 7:14 to be understood as a "virgin" in the strict sense of the word, he might logically be expected to use bethulah here as well.²¹

Similarly, The Broadman Bible Commentary has also discussed the theme in detail:

The Hebrew word has been translated "a virgin" in the KJV and a young woman in the RSV. This noun is derived from a verbal root meaning "to be ripe." Therefore it denotes a young girl who has passed the age of puberty and is presumably capable of bearing children.

The word ‘almah neither affirms nor denies virginity on the part of the one to whom it refers. The technically Hebrew term for virgin is bethula, a term which is used elsewhere in Isaiah, but not in this passage (...).

The suggestion, therefore, that the young woman referred to by Isaiah was a virgin arose not from the Hebrew Bible, but from the Greek [translation of the Bible: Septuagint or LXX]. In all but two places the Septuagint translators rendered ‘almah by the noncommittal neanis (young woman). The two exceptions were Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14, where parthenos (virgin) was used. The translator’s decision to call Rebecca a parthenos was doubtless due to the very explicit statement regarding her virginity in Genesis 24:16. Why the mother in Isaiah 7:14 also was described as a parthenos has never been satisfactorily explained. It was, of course, the Greek version of this verse which was quoted by Matthew.²²

Similar explanation has been given by most of the authorities regarding the word "VIRGIN". The names of some of them are given below:

a) The new Jerome Biblical Commentary: Ha’alma is not the technical term for a virgin (betula). This is best understood as a wife of Ahaz; the child promised will guarantee the dynasty’s future (...).²³
b) The New Bible Commentary Revised: (...). But the nearest English equivalent is ‘girl’: (...).²⁴
c) The New Bible Commentary: Let it be granted that the word translated ‘virgin’ (Heb. almah) need not have that exclusive connotation, and that the prophet is thinking in the first instance of an immediate occurrence.²⁵
d) O.T. Translation Problems (by A.R. Hulst): (...), since a young woman is called ‘alma(h), but not every ‘alma(h) is necessarily a ‘virgin’ in the sense of the other Hebrew noun betula(h), in which virginity is stressed. For a recent thorough treatment of this text cf. The Bible Translator, Vol.9, no.3, July, 1958.²⁶
e) Encycl. of Biblical Prophecy (by J. Barton Payne) although admits the "young woman" version as genuine, yet it has tried to create confusion through ambiguity: ‘Terry speaks of this passage as "probably the most difficult of all the Messianic prophecies,"²⁷ The standard interpretation proposed by liberal criticism is that Isaiah here refers to the son of a contemporary young woman, not a virgin [stress added], whose child will be named Immanuel, meaning that God is providentially with us, which would thus serve as a sign of the defeat of Judah’s northern enemies (7:8).²⁸
f) As far as the OT is concerned, the Jews more genuinely deserve to interpret and translate it. It would be relevant here to quote the meaning and view point of one of the Jewish authorities: The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (by Dr. J.H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire): ‘Similarly, in connection with Isaiah VII, 14, ‘A virgin shall conceive,’ Christian scholars today admit that ‘virgin’ is a mistranslation for the Heb. word almah, in that verse. A ‘maid’ or unmarried woman is expressed in Hebrew by bethulah. The word almah in Isaiah VII,14 means no more than a young woman of age to be a mother, whether she be married or not.²⁹

It is remarkably strange that almost all the translators of the New Testament of the Bible, while translating this Prophecy of Isaiah quoted in Matthew I:23, use the word "VIRGIN", although they translate it as " ‘a’ or ‘the’ YOUNG WOMAN" at its original place (ISA.VII:14). But when Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was legitimately the wife of Joseph according to the Gospel of Matthew and Luke (the Gospels of Mark and John give no account of the birth of Jesus); and as such it cannot indisputably be claimed that she was virgin. Matthew records the event in the following words:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit, and her husband Joseph [stress added. The word ‘husband’ for Joseph indicates that his wife, Mary, was not a maiden girl at that time; but was a married woman, and naturally, nobody would like to concede to the claim of virginity about a married woman], being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife [stress added. The word "wife" is again very significant here. The original Greek word used in the NT is "gune" : meaning "a wife", which has been derived from the Greek word "ginomai": meaning "be married".³⁰ Obviously, nobody would like to concede to the idea of "VIRGINITY" towards a married woman who is some-one’s wife and is going to give birth to a child.], for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God is with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife [stress added; the use of the word wife is again to be noted], but knew her not until she had born a son; and he called his name Jesus.³¹

Luke reports the event in the following words:

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. (...). And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered. And she gave birth to her first -born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.³²

Obviously, it could not have been revealed through a dream to everyone that "which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;". Everybody could naturally think that Jesus was a routine son of Joseph and there was no question of his miraculous or "VIRGIN BIRTH". As for the Evangelist’s statement, neither he himself is the eye-witness of the event; nor he records it to be reported to him by some eye-witness. It can thus be asserted that the statement of the Bible regarding the Virgin Birth of Jesus is dubious and ambiguous and it proves nothing as to the Virgin Birth in unequivocal terms. One can find only in the Qur’a#n the pronouncement of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in unequivocal terms. But a person confessing the New Testament of the Bible cannot confidently claim a ‘Virgin Birth’ about the son of Mary, the legitimate wife of Joseph, (and not the son of a Virgin Mary). It is this dubious and ambiguous account of both of the evangelists which provides the Jews the ground to blaspheme Jesus as an illegitimate child. Now, that the Virgin Birth of Jesus has itself become doubtful according the dubious statements of the NT, there remains no genuine ground for attaching the prophecy of Isaiah to it.
It may be noted here that an intentional attempt has been made to quote a fairly considerable number of authorities of different times, different countries, different denominations and different schools of thought to show that there is a sort of sizeable consensus on the point; and so that one may not reject or discord the findings with the plea that they do not bear a representative status. Now, on the perusal of the above discussions, it can be safely concluded that:

a) The prophecy was uttered by the Prophet Isaiah c.734 years "Before Christ" to deter king Ahaz of the Northern Kingdom of Judah from relinquishing the liberty of the land and people of Judah to the pagan king of Assyria, Tiglath-pileser III, to seek his support against the impending attack of the coalition of Aram (Syria) and Israel. Ahaz doesn’t seem to accept this advice.
b) God Himself pronounced a ‘sign’ to Ahaz through the prophet Isaiah that within the period a new-born baby ‘is old enough to know how to choose between right and wrong’ , [which has been defined by the commentators of the Bible as "twelve years"], ‘the countries of the two kings you fear will be destroyed.’³³ The ‘sign’ physically materialised and both the countries were devastated by the Assyrians [Syria in 732 BC and Israel in 722 BC] in exactly the predicted and stipulated period. The prophecy having once been fulfilled in-toto and in letter and spirit, there remains nothing concerning it to happen in future.
c) Isaiah did not make even a slightest hint to the effect that the ‘sign’ had or could have afforded a ‘double application’ and could accommodate another event to take place in as remote a future as 734 years. Moreover, there is nothing in the context either, which can allow the prediction to be extended and be made applicable to some other event in future.
d) The whole of the argument for the prophecy to be applied in favour of Jesus Christ rests on the word "VIRGIN". But it is unfortunate on the part of Evangelists using the prophecy in favour of the so called "Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ" that Isaiah, while pronouncing the prophecy, did not use a word which could safely be applied to mean "a Virgin" [such as "Bethulah", which has many a time been used to mean "a Virgin" in the OT]. He rather used the Hebrew word "ALMAH", which simply means: "a young woman of marriageable age", and which has nothing to do with the question whether she be a "Virgin" or otherwise.
e) The Evangelists using this prophecy of Isaiah in favour of the "Virgin Birth of Jesus" were allured to it in view of the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT called "Septuagint", which was in common use in those days. They did not bother to trace and consult the original Hebrew Old Testament of the Bible to ensure the validity and accuracy of their standpoint.
f) It is only the translators of "Septuagint", who are responsible for it. They were the first and the only translators who committed this blunder of far-reaching effects. As already explained a number of times Isaiah used the Hebrew word "Almah" in his prophecy, which simply means "a young woman of marriageable age", and where the OT requires to convey the sense of and stress on "Virginity", it uses the word "Bethulah", which is the right Hebrew word for a "Virgin".
g) Had Isaiah intended and used the word Almah of the prophecy to signify a Virgin, and had it really meant so, there should either have been a mention of a "Virgin Birth" in his times, or Ahaz had genuinely recorded an objection against the prophecy to belie the statement of Isaiah, which the Bible failed to report. But nobody would like to concede to any of such variables.
h) Had the prophecy meant for a so called "double application", its results and implications should have been similar ones. If the birth of Jesus Christ be presented as a "Virgin Birth" in the light of the prophecy of Isaiah, the birth of "Immanuel" of the days of Isaiah should also be accepted as a "Virgin Birth".
i) If the birth of "Immanuel" of the days of Isaiah be considered and accepted as a "Virgin Birth", it will signify [and will have to be acknowledged as] a "Miraculous Birth". But no Christian Scholar would like to accept this proposition, because it might pose serious problems for the Church, as already mentioned by some of the Christian authorities.
j) If Immanuel of the days of Isaiah be assigned a "Miraculous Virgin Birth", the "Miraculous Virgin Birth" of Jesus Christ will lose all its significance and singularity; and the edifice of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Trinity will be dashed to ground. In such a case, the evidence which is so forcefully and repeatedly offered as a proof in favour of the "DIVINITY" of Jesus Christ, shall categorically prove the human nature and Prophethood/Apostleship of "LORD JESUS". Would some Christian authority dare to profess and pronounce the prophecy of Isaiah in favour of the "Virgin Birth" of his "Lord Jesus"; with all its implications worked out above.
k) The Evangelists have based their theme on the wrong translation of the Hebrew OT by the translators of the "Septuagint". Had those translators not committed this confounding mistake, and thus had it not been there in the Greek translation of the OT of the Bible, i.e. the "Septuagint", there would have been no basis for the evangelists of quoting it in their Gospels, and there would have been no question of all this useless discussion; which is obviously based on a faulty proposition.
l) It is an ample proof of the carelessness, irresponsibility, incompetence and indiscretion of the Evangelists, which affords a sufficient ground for rendering their Gospels as quite unreliable.
m) It is also to be noted that Jesus Christ (sws) never referred to the prophecy of Isaiah or claimed for himself a "Virgin Birth" in any of his utterances throughout the Gospels.

As can be appreciated, the following points have clearly been established through the deliberations accomplished so far:

a) On historical basis, the prophecy in question cannot be applied to the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, by any stretch of meaning or any trick of interpretation.
b) On lexicographical grounds, the application of the prophecy to the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ (sws) is utterly baseless, because the original Hebrew prophecy is totally void of any word having the absolute meaning of a Virgin.

3. The word ‘IMMANUEL’ and its significance.
Having taken up two points of the dissertation, the third and the last heading remains to be studied. Isaiah pronounces to king Ahaz of Judah, as a sign from God, that a young woman is to conceive and is going to give birth to a son (or the young woman is already pregnant and is to bear a son), whose name shall be Immanuel. Before this ‘forthcoming’ child reaches the age of accountability (that is, within almost a decade), both of his enemies (King Rezin of Syria and king Pekah of Israel) shall be destroyed. It shows that it was through the design of God that the boy was given the name "Immanuel". The name of the boy is a key word and an integral part of the prophecy. Where there is no Immanuel, this prophecy cannot be applied there ; and if it be tried to attach this prophecy to some new-born baby who is not given the name "Immanuel", it is doomed to be null and void and would be signifying nothing. The word Immanuel is the pivot of Isaiah’s oracle. It is very conspicuous and meaningful. It means "God is (or shall remain) with us". [ ‘Immanuel’ is a compound word of the Hebrew language, which, like its sister language, Arabic, belongs to the family of the Semetic languages. Immanuel is composed of three words: (a) Imma {Arabic - Ma`a} = with; (b) nu# {Arabic - na#} = us and e#l {Arabic - Ila#h, Alla#h} = God; which joined together, become: "God is with us" {Arabic - ‘Allahu ma‘ana#’}]. It implies God’s presence with and support for His people and tells Ahaz not to be afraid of his enemies, because they are heading towards their early extermination and will not be able to harm him any way.
The sign was materialized within almost two years of its pronouncement in 734 BC: Syria was captured and her ruler, Rezin, was killed by the Assyrian king in 732 BC; and Pekah, king of Israel, was murdered by Hoshea in the same year. The prophecy was to be completely fulfilled before a new-born baby reaches the age of accountability, i.e. within twelve years of its pronouncement; and it is a historical fact that it was materialized in-toto accordingly. The kingdom of Israel, which was actually confined to her capital, Samaria only, was put to rout and its people were transported beyond Assyria in 722 BC, i.e. within twelve years of its announcement; by which time Immanuel must have been born and would not have reached the age of accountability (12 years) still.
Isaiah predicted the birth of one "Immanuel" to a "young woman"; whereas the Evangelist Matthew has applied it to the "Virgin Birth" of "Jesus" to Mary. It is an undeniable fact that "Virgin Mary" did never give birth to some child who was named "Immanuel". She gave "Virgin Birth" only to "Jesus Christ". As recorded in the Gospel according to Matthew, the child was given the name "Jesus" by God Himself, as revealed to the husband of Mary through an angel in a dream, even before his birth:

But as he considered this [to divorce Mary quietly], behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall [the imperative tone of "shall" should especially be noted.] call his name Jesus [stress added], (...)." (...). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him [stress added]; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son [stress added]; and he called his name Jesus [stress added].³⁴

The child to be born to Virgin Mary was given the name "Jesus", even before her conception, rather even before her marriage, as emphatically commanded by God Himself to Mary, through the angel Gabriel. Matthew has recorded it as follows:

And the angel [Gabriel] said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus [stress added].(...)." And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband [stress added]? (..). And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.³⁵

Consequently, this child of the "Virgin Birth" was given the name "Jesus" as already commanded by God to the father and the mother of the child individually. On the other hand, in Isaiah’s prophecy as well, it was God Himself, Who gave the name "Immanuel", to the ‘child of the sign’. It will be appreciated that the evidence of the Gospels testifies that Jesus has never been called with the name of "Immanuel" by anyone, anywhere in the Bible. Jesus also did never use the name "Immanuel" for himself in the whole of the NT. Jesus neither claimed that Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy of the OT was in his favour, nor he claimed anywhere in the NT of the Bible that people should call him with the name of "Immanuel". It is again interesting to note that even the writer of the "Gospel according to Matthew" has neither himself used the name "Immanel" for Jesus, nor he has quoted anybody else calling Jesus with the name "Immanuel" anywhere in the whole of the Bible.

One child (the child of the ‘sign’ to Ahaz, as pronounced through Isaiah) had been given the name "Immanuel" by God in the year c.734 BC in the OT of the Bible. The other child (the son of ‘Virgin Mary’) was given the name "Jesus", also by God Himself, as recorded in the "Gospel according to Matthew" of the NT, c.734 years later. Now, these are two different names, having different meanings (Jesus = Saviour; Immanuel = God is with us), relating to two different children, in different situations, at different stages of history and having different aims and implications. If both these names related to one and the same child, God might have pronounced it clearly in unequivocal terms, leaving no room for undue speculations and confusions. But the contents and the context of the prophecy clearly denote that it relates only to one child – the child of the "Sign" addressed to Ahaz by Isaiah, i.e. "Immanuel"--, and it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. The application of the prophecy of Isaiah to the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus Christ purports as if:

Either God did not know how to convey a theme in suitable and explicit words,

a) Or He intentionally wanted to misguide and confuse the people,
b) Or, by the lapse of 734 years, God forgot that He had previously ordered that the child be given the name "Immanuel" and thus mistakenly ordered the "Child of the Virgin Birth" to be named as "Jesus".

Nobody can imagine to assign any of these variables to God.
Taken from another angle, it can be asserted that:

a) Jesus never claimed for himself that he was "Immanuel" of Isaiah’s prophecy or that it was his name, given to him by his parents as ordered to them by the Lord.
b) Isaiah also did not indicate in this prophecy or in any other one that the people or the parents of the child of the prophecy would call this "Immanuel" with the name of "Jesus"; and that the "Jesus" would, as a matter of fact, be "Immanuel" and none else.
c) God Himself, as well, did no where give "Jesus" the name "Immanuel" or called him as such.
d) No one of the Evangelists used "Immanuel" as the name of "Jesus" anywhere in their Gospels. Even in the passages claiming "Immanuel" to be applied to "Jesus", they used "Jesus" as his name; and did not mention him with the name of "Immanuel".

Now, it is the case of everybody on earth to consider as to by what trick of interpretation one could apply Isaiah’s prophecy regarding "Immanuel" to "Jesus".
All the above discussions on the subject categorically prove that "Isaiah’s Immanuel Prophecy" can by no way be applied to the "Virgin Birth" of "Jesus Christ". Even then the Christian authorities, quite baselessly and arbitrarily present it as a proof for the "Virgin Birth" of "Jesus". On the other hand, the prophecies of the Bible regarding the advent of the era of the Prophet of Islam are so explicit, self-explanatory and exact, that it requires a great deal of obstinacy not to consider them worth an objective appraisal. It would be desirable that the principles of objective research be adhered to and the double standard approach be discarded.

____________________
1. NASB - Mat. I:22-23, p.2.
2. TEV - [footnote ‘k’ on:] Isa. VII;14, p.699.
3. NEB - p.509 and p.723.
4. RB - p.372 and p.521.
5. RSV (Cath. Ed.) - p.694 and p.1(NT)
6. NRSV (Cath. Ed. for India) - p.805 and p.1(NT).
7. NOAB - p.876-OT and p.2-NT.
8. NOAB - p.876-OT (as footnote).
9. NJB - p.1200 and p.1610.
10. CCB - foot-note on Isa. VII:14, p.523f.
11. NAB - foot-note on Isa. VII:14, p.788.
12. LB - foot-note on Isa. VII:14, p.574.
13. CEV - foot-note on Isa. VII:14, p.815.
14. NTSE - foot-note on Mt. I:23, p.27.
15. Cavil = to find fault without sufficient reason; make trifling objections.
16. Ransack = search thoroughly; plunder.
17. A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, Ed. by James Hastings, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908, pp. 782f.
18. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Charles Gore, London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Northumberland Avenue, W.C.2,1928, p.439.
19. Peake’ Commentary, op.cit., p.495.
20. Dummelow’s Commentary, p.624f, 626.
21. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol.4, p.134f.
22. The Broadman B. Commentary, Vol.5, p.215.
23. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p.235.
24. The New Bible Commentary Revised, p.596.
25. The New Bible Commentary, p.569.
26. A.R. Hulst, O. T. Translation Problems, Published for the United Bible Societies by E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1960, p.139.
27. Terry, Milton S., Biblical Hermeneutics, New York: Phillips and Hunt, I883, p.331[as quoted by Encycl. of Biblical Prophecy].
28. J. Barton Payne, Encycl. of Biblical Prophecy, op.cit., p.291.
29. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, Ed. by Dr. J.H. Hertz, C.H., Second Ed., London, Soncino Press, 1979, p.202.
30. J. Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the words in The Greek Testament supplemented to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984, p.20f; entry Nos.1096 and 1135.
31. RSV-Mt. I:18-25 [as quoted by: Synopsis of the Four Gospels, Ed. by Kurt Aland, United Bible Societies, USA., 1985, p.7f].
32. RSV-Mt. II:1,3-7 [as quoted by: Syn. of the 4 Gospels, op.cit., p.7].
33. CEV-Isa. VII:15f, p.774.
34. RSV (II Ed., 1971)-Mt. I:19-21,24 [as quoted by: Syn. of the 4 Gospels, op.cit., p.7f].
35. RSV (II Ed., 1971)-Mt. I:30f, 34, 38 [as quoted by: Syn. of the 4 Gospels, op.cit., p.3].

Immanuel of the Bible: Is it a Prediction for Jesus Christ? (I)

By :studying-islam

The book of Isaiah of the Old Testament of the Bible has preserved the following prediction:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and¹ will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.²

Almost every Christian commentator of the Bible has interpreted it in terms of a prediction in favour of Jesus Christ (sws). Barton Payne has also recorded it as such in his ‘Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy’.³ For most of the Christians it is a matter of their faith to believe in its predictive status because it has been quoted as such in the ‘Gospel’ according to Matthew.⁴ In fact it is simply due to the misconception of the writer of the gospel and misinterpretation of the commentators of the Bible on the basis of the wrong translation of the Hebrew word ‘ALMAH’ as ‘VIRGIN’ by the translators of Septuagint that it has been attached to Jesus Christ (sws); whereas it has nothing to do with this theme. Seeing the word ‘VIRGIN’, they could not overcome their crave to mould and exploit it in favour of Jesus Christ (sws) and came out with all their proficiency of interpretation and hermeneutics and displayed their wonderful skill to expound it in terms of a prediction in favour of Jesus Christ (sws). In the following lines, the subject will be discussed under three topics:

1. Historical Back-ground of the prophecy.
2. The word ‘VIRGIN’ and the whole story about it.
3. The word ‘IMMANUEL’ and its significance.

1. Historical Back-ground of the Prophecy
Isaiah was ‘The prophet to whom the canonical book of Isaiah is attributed. (...). He lived in Jerusalem and his prophetic activity extended at least from 742 to 701 BC.’⁵ ‘He was married to a woman whom he calls prophetess (8:3) and they had at least two sons: Shearjashub and Maher-shalal-Hashbaz. Their names are associated with prophetic pronouncements (7:3; 8:3). He may also have had a third son, Immanuel, who also bears a symbolic name. (...). Isaiah was a contemporary of the prophet Micah and was preceded slightly by Amos and Hosea, who were active in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Isaiah prophesied in Judah during the reigns of kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.’⁶
Ahaz was the king of the Southern Kingdom, Judah, during 735-715 BC.⁷ He inherited the throne of his father, Jotham⁸, when he was only twenty. At that time. the king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel was Pekah⁹, son of Remaliah¹⁰. Damascus¹¹ was ruled by Rezin.¹² Assyria was a sort of super power of the region at that time and its king was Tiglath Pileser III.¹³ After his successful campaigns in the North and East, he laid siege to and eventually conquered Arpad, in N. Syria during ca. 742-40 BC. The effect of this victory was far-reaching; and tributes came in from Tyre, Damascus, Cilicia, Carchemish, etc. The king of Damascus Rezin became active to forge an alliance of all the anti-Assyrian forces of the Levant¹⁴. Pekah of Israel joined the coalition readily.

The king of Damascus, Rezin, was among those who paid tribute to the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III in 738 BC., but within three years Rezin had organized an anti-Assyrian coalition consisting of Damascus, Tyre, Philistia, Israel, some Arab tribes, and perhaps Edom."¹⁵

Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus wished that Ahaz of Judah should also join his hands with them in the coalition. Ahaz of Judah declined to join this coalition. Perhaps having estimated the power of Assyria, he was afraid of it; or, perhaps, because he had not remained faithful with Yahweh and had inclined towards idolatry and pagonism. Pekah and Rezin decided to attack Judah to topple the government of Ahaz and to plant the son of Tabeel (who was probably Ahaz’s step-brother from some Aramaean princess) on the throne of Judah as a puppet king.

It was in connection with this crisis that the prophet Isaiah was sent to Ahaz to assure him of God’s help in his struggle with Israel and the Syrians, and evidently also to warn him against calling for foreign aid (Is 7). Ahaz, however, did not appreciate this counsel and turned to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria for help, sending him a large gift of money taken from the treasures of the Temple and palace. Tiglath-pileser responded by invading Israel and besieging Damascus (2ki 16:5-9; 2Chr 28:6-21). Damascus was captured (in 732 BC) and Rezin killed, and much territory of Israel was taken from Pekah and made into an Assyrian province (see 2 Ki 15:29). It was probably with the connivance of Tiglath-pileser that Pekah was assassinated by Hoshea, who usurped the throne for himself and was confirmed in his office by the Assyrian king. While Tiglath-pileser was at Damascus, Ahaz went up to meet him, apparently to pay homage as a vassal along with the Syrians. He sent home a model of a foreign altar that he had seen in Damascus, with an order to have a similar one built for the Temple at Jerusalem. This was probably an Assyrian altar to be used to worship Assyrian national gods. It replaced Solomon’s altar of burnt offerings (2 Ki 16:10-16)."¹⁶

At the refusal of Ahaz to join their Coalition, Damascus and Israel decided to attack Judah. Ahaz of Judah being afraid of the coalition decided to seek protection from Assyria through paying huge amounts as tribute to Tiglath-pileser III. Isaiah did not like that Ahaz relinquish the liberty of Judah to the pagan king of Assyria. As instructed by God, Isaiah called on Ahaz along with his son, Shear-Jashub, and told him not to be afraid of Israel and Damascus. The Bible records it as follows:

Now 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 to Jerusalem to make war against it, but could not prevail against it.

2. And it was told to the house of David, saying, "Syria’s forces are deployed in Ephraim." So his heart and the heart of his people were moved as the trees of the woods are moved with the wind.

3. Then the Lord said to Isaiah, "Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and Shear-Jashub your son, at the end of the aqueduct from the upper pool, on the highway to the Fuller’s Field,

4. "And say to him: ‘Take heed, and be quiet; do not fear or be faint-hearted for these two stubs¹⁷ of smoking firebands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria, and the son of Remaliah.

5. ‘Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah have plotted evil against you, saying,

6. "Let us go up against Judah and trouble it, and let us make a gap in its wall for ourselves, and set a king over them, the son of Tabel"--

7. ‘Thus says the Lord God: "It shall not stand, nor shall it come to pass.

8. For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken, so that it will not be a people. [stress added].

9. The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established." ’ "¹⁸

The following are the salient points of these verses:

a) The Alliance of Israel and Damascus designed an abortive attempt against Judah.
b) As a first step for this invasion, the Syrian armies assembled in Israel. The people and the king of Judah were frightened at it.
c) The Lord told Isaiah to take his son Shear-jashub with him to meet Ahaz out side the city at the end of the water-supply pipe-line near the water reservoir, which he was getting repaired in anticipation of the impending invasion/siege. God also asked Isaiah to advise Ahaz not to be afraid of the invasion of the coalition of Syria and Israel because their decline is already in process and their nefarious designs against Judah are doomed to fail.
d) Within sixty five years the state of Israel will come to an end and it will no more be a nation.
e) If Ahaz did not have faith, he will perish.

As a surety the Lord told Ahaz to ask for a sign. Ahaz declined and said that he will not like to test the Lord. The Bible records the event in the following words:

10. Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying,

11. "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven."

12. But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!"

13. Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?

14. "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.

15. "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.

16. "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

17. "The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father’s house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria."¹⁹

The story has also been recorded in 2Kings XVI:1-9 in the following words:

In the seventeenth year of Pekah, son of Remaliah, Ahaz son of Jotham king of Judah became king. Ahaz was twenty years old when he came to the throne, and he reigned in Jerusalem for sixteen years. He did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD his God like his forefather David, but followed in the footsteps of the kings of Israel; he even passed his son through the fire, adopting the abominable practice of the nations whom the LORD had depossessed in favour of the Israelites. He slaughtered and burnt sacrifices at the hill-shrines and on the hill-tops and under every spreading tree.

Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel attacked Jerusalem and besieged Ahaz but could not bring him to battle. At that time the king of Edom [the king of Edom: prob. rdg.; Heb. Rezin king of Aram.—(under foot-note ‘u’ of the book)] recovered Elath and drove the Judeans out of it; so the Edomites entered the city and have occupied it to this day. Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria to say: ‘I am your servant and your son. Come and save me from the king of Aram and from the king of Israel who are attacking me.’ Ahaz took the silver and gold found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace and sent them to the king of Assyria as a bribe. The king of Assyria listened to him; he advanced on Damascus, captured it, deported its inhabitants to Kir and put Rezin to death.²⁰

As to the prediction: ‘Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken, so that it will not be a people.’, it is by way of a consolation for Ahaz and his people that they should ‘have no fear (...) because of these two stubs of smoldering firebands,’. Taken as it is, it loses all significance, because ‘the prediction was made about 734 B.C.,’²¹ (or even, maybe, in 733); and if it was to be fulfilled in the time-span of 65 years, i.e. by 668 or 669 BC; it could be of no use for Ahaz, who died 18 or 19 years after it: in 715 B.C.²² It could have been meaningful and consolatory for Ahaz only in case it could spare him from the impending disaster. If it was to take place some 65 years later, Ahaz could not have survived to celebrate it and Judah would have been crushed to nothingness by the joint forces of the alliance long before the predicted destruction of the two kingdoms. Moreover it is not in conformity with the theme of the sign promised in the forthcoming verses 14-16. It is asserted there that:

The virgin (...) will give birth to a son, and will call his name Immanuel.(...). But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.²³

This prediction, no doubt, could have been very much meaningful to Ahaz. The boy’s being born and the boy’s being able to reject the wrong and choose the right might not have taken more than 10-15 years in all; and it is to be noted that the devastation of the two kingdoms was to be accomplished before it, when the forthcoming child was still undergoing the stage of ‘boyhood’. To be more exact, it had to be accomplished before 12 years, as The Wycliffe Bible Commentary has asserted:

That is, when he attains the age of legal accountability (doubtless twelve years of age [stress added] ). This would come out to 721, after the destructive campaigns of Shalmanesser V and Sargon. Certainly by 721 Damascus was forsaken (having been captured by Assyria in 732) and likewise Samaria (which fell in 722)²⁴

The interpretation made by the Broadman Bible Commentary is very interesting and it remarkably resolves the matter:

Ahaz was told specifically that before the child knew how to refuse the evil and choose the good, that is, before he reached the age of moral responsibility — perhaps to be understood as 12 years of age — the kings of Syria and Israel would be put to flight. The prophecy was fulfilled in a most remarkable way, for in 732 Tigleth-pileser III not only destroyed Damascus but also compelled Samaria to surrender to him. [stress added].²⁵

Moreover, it is in complete conformity with the actual sequence of the historical events of the time. Damascus had been conquered and its king Rezin put to death by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (2Kings XVI:9) in 732 B.C., i.e. within one or two years of the prediction; while, at the same time, Samaria was also compelled to surrender to him. The significance of the event should carefully be appreciated; it should not be over-looked or under-estimated. When the main instigator of the alliance (king Rezin of Damascus) and his kingdom were exterminated; king Pekah of Israel should also have lost all hope and courage and could have no more been ‘dreadful’ for king Ahaz, being himself a vassal of Assyria. He would have found it difficult to save his own land from Assyria, not to say of indulging himself in invading Judah. Broadman Commentary’s approach seems to be genuine, when it explains the point in the passage quoted above.
It was more literally and explicitly materialized not later than ten years of it. The capital of Israel, Samaria, was besieged by Assyrian king Shalmaneser V in 722 BC, the capture of which was claimed by his son, Sargon II. Deportation of its inhabitants was carried out and foreigners were installed in their place (2Kings XVII: 5). It means that within one or two years of the prediction, the ‘dreadfulness’ of the ‘two kings’ had come to an end; and within 11 (i.e. before 12) years of the prediction, it was conspicuously fulfilled in-toto. It should be noted here that Isaiah uses the words ‘stubs of smoldering fire-bands’ for the two kingdoms of Israel and Syria, which signifies that the beginning of the end of those two kingdoms had long been operative and their final catastrophe was at hand. They are ‘smoldering fire-bands’ means: they are like a piece or stick of wood which is in the process of burning; but it is not burning with a flame, it is merely smudging and burning slowly. Then the word ‘stub’ is again very picturesque and allegorical. It is a short piece of something (e.g. a pencil, a cigarette, or a stick of wood) left after the larger part of it has been consumed or burnt out. Dummelow has well explained it:

RV ‘let not thine heart be faint because of these two tails of smoking fire-bands.’ The prophet regards them as no more than expiring torches [stress added].²⁶

KJV uses the word ‘tail’ for this ‘stub’. Originally, in the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew word ‘zanab’ has been used for it. As a primary root the word ‘zanab’ means: ‘to curtail, i.e. cut off the rear’. Hence, figuratively (or, may be, even literally) it means a [curtailed] tail.²⁷ Keeping in view the historical back-ground of the age: the fast-expanding and overwhelming Assyrian empire; and the ever-declining small Near Eastern states; the account of Isaiah in no case seems to be an exaggeration. If the destruction of those two kingdoms was as far away as 65 years, it would signify:

(a) the words ‘stub of smoldering fire-bands’ are not in concordance with the real situation.
(b) They, in no way, carry any consolation or satisfaction for Ahaz, who was facing the instant atmosphere of menace and threat from the alliance of the neighbouring states.

That’s why the commentators of the Bible find it difficult to interpret the verse in a satisfactory and convincing manner. The writer of the Seventh Day Adventist Bible Commentary says:

The meaning of this prediction is uncertain. According to the chronology of the kings followed tentatively in this commentary (see Vol. II, pp.77, 143, 749), the prediction was made about 734 B.C., and no chronology places the accession of Ahaz earlier than 742. Yet by 722 Israel, the northern kingdom, had come to its end with the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians. Some modern scholars have concluded that the clause introduced by these words was inserted by a later hand. (...). Assuming that the number 65 was in the original text of Isaiah, and there is no conclusive reason for thinking that it was not, two possible fulfilments have been suggested. Sixty-five years after 734, inclusive, would be 670, when Esarhaddon (681-669) reigned over Assyria. It is a fact that Esarhaddon (and after him his successor Ashurbanipal, the Biblical Asnapper) had certain Mesopotamian peoples transported to the former territory of the northern kingdom (Ezra 4:2-10). This was long after Israel had come to its end as a nation (723/22). The Assyrian policy of scattering subject peoples was designed to obliterate old national identities and loyalties. So many Israelites of the ten tribes were absorbed into the neighbouring populations that they have frequently been referred to as ‘lost’ tribes. It is probable that some of them later joined the captives from Judah and returned with them after the Exile, but as individuals in a Jewish community that was the continuation of the old kingdom of Judah, not of Israel.

Another interpretation has been suggested -- that the 65 years may have begun about the time of the earthquake, during the reign of Uzziah or Jeroboam II. This earthquake was the token of the Lord’s judgements upon Israel mentioned by Amos. If so, Isaiah here merely refers to the fall of Samaria in 723/22. This is possible, but not provable, because the exact date of the earthquake is not known. Since no definite starting point of the 65 years is given, it is not possible today -- nor is it necessary -- to determine the meaning of the prediction. In all probability, a specific prophecy such as this was clear and meaningful to the people in whose day it was given. Obviously, it was more important for them to understand it than it is for us.²⁸

The salient features of the above passage are given below with some running comments where necessary:
i) The meanings of the prediction are uncertain.
ii) The prediction was made about 734 BC.
iii) The northern kingdom of Israel had come to its end by 722 BC with the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians.
iv) Some modern scholars have concluded that the clause (‘Within threescore and five years’) was inserted by a later hand. They point to the fact that this statement seems to interrupt the flow of thought between vs. 8 and 9. It would be pertinent here to elaborate the observation of the worthy commentator and provide the names and observations of some of such authorities who consider it a later addition, or show serious reservations about its genuineness, or give it in parenthesis: which shows that according to them the clause is not a genuine one and is a later addition:

The New American Bible, 1991, p.788: ‘If [stress added] the text is correct, its reference is unknown.’
The Holy Bible, R. S. V., Catholic Ed., 1966, p.694: in ( ).
New American Standard Bible, Reference Ed.,1977, p.864:in ( ).
The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition for India, 1996, p.80: in ( ).
Christian Community Bible, na., p.523, has incorporated this theme in the very text of the translation. Moreover, it has marked this piece of verse 8 as ‘8b’ and has placed it in between verse 9, bifurcating it into two pieces: ‘9a’ and ‘9b’. Its translation is: ‘Within five or six years now Ephraim will be shattered and will no longer be a people.’
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1994, p.235: "sixty-five years: Verse 9a is a later addition [stress added] and probably refers to the settlement of a foreign population in Samaria by Esarhaddon.’
The New Bible Commentary, 1953, p.569: ‘These words are regarded by some commentators as a gloss by a later writer [stress added]: it is argued that the prophets did not normally date their predictions in this precise way.’
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, 1962, p.617: ‘Actually, Samaria fell within eleven years (722 B.C.), and her population was deported beyond Assyria.’
A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1928, p.439: ‘The reference is obscure, and the statement seems out of place here. [stress added]’
Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1967, p.495: ‘The sentence is not in accord with the facts, and would, in any case, be cold comfort to Ahaz. Possibly it should be read, ‘Yet six, nay five, years more...’ and placed after 9a’.
A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Dummelow, 1956, p.419: ‘On account of the manner in which this prediction interrupts the parallelism, some modern scholars regard it as an addition by a later editor. [stress added]’.

v) Assuming that the number 65 was in the original text of Isaiah, the worthy commentator gives two justifications: (i) 65 years after the date of the proclamation of the prophecy (in 734 BC.) would be 670 BC., when Esarhaddon (681-669BC.) reigned over Assyria. He and his successor, Ashurbanipal had transported certain Mesopotamian peoples to former Israel, long after its extinction in 722 or 721 BC. (It is a far-fetched and worthless justification, because the Israelites had already been transported from Israel to somewhere even beyond Assyria in 722 or 721 BC after the fall of Samaria by the then Assyrian king Shalmaneser V or Sargon; which shows that Israel was completely destroyed in 722 BC. As far as Esarhaddon is concerned, he did not transport the Israelites from Israel; he only transported certain Mesopotamian peoples to former Israel, which does not mean that the destruction of Israel was accomplished 65 years later by Esarhaddon.) (ii) The second justification: that the 65 years may have begun about the time of the earthquake, during the reign of Uzziah or Jeroboam II; is so baseless and vague that it needs no comment at all.
vi) Since no definite starting point of the 65 years is given, it is not possible today to determine the meaning of the prediction. (It is obviously incorrect and an abortive attempt on the part of the commentator to confuse the matter. He had himself stated above that the prediction was made about 734 B.C. (3rd line of the quotation from the commentator above)).

Matthew Henry has also offered some interesting interpretations about the verses. While explaining verse 9, at one point, he notes:

Interpreters are much at a loss how to compute the sixty-five years within which Ephraim shall cease to be a people; for the captivity of the ten tribes was but eleven years after this: and some make it a mistake of the transcriber, and think it should be read within six and five years, just eleven.²⁹

While explaining verse16, he brings forward quite a unique interpretation; which curtails the period between the utterance and fulfilment of the prediction to three or four years:

Here is another sign in particular of the speedy destruction of these potent princes that were now a terror to Judah, v.16. ‘Before this child (so it should be read), this child which I have now in my arms’ (he means not Immanuel, but Shear-jashub his own son, whom he was ordered to take with him for a sign, v.3), ‘before this child shall know how to refuse the evil and choose the good’ (and those who saw what his present stature and forwardness were would easily conjecture how long that would be), ‘before this child be three or four years older [from now], the land that thou abhorest, these confederate forces of Israelites and Syrians, which thou hast such an enmity to and standest in such dread of, shall be forsaken of both their kings, both Pekah and Rezin,’ who were in so close an alliance that they seemed as if they were the kings but of one kingdom. This was fully accomplished; for, within two or three years after this, Hoshea conspired against Pekah, and slew him (2Kings xv.30), and, before that, the king of Assyria took Damascus , and slew Rezin, 2Kings xvi. 9. Nay, there was a present event, which happened immediately, and which this child carried the prediction of in his name, which was a pledge and earnest of this further event. Shear-jashub signifies The remnant shall return, which doubtless points at the wonderful return of those 200,000 captives whom Pekah and Rezin had carried away, who were brought back, not by might or power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts. Read the story, 2 Chron xxviii. 8-15. The prophetic naming of this child having thus had its accomplishment, no doubt this, which was further added concerning him, should have its accomplishment likewise that Syria and Israel should be deprived of both their kings.³⁰

From all the above references and dissertations the following conclusions can be safely arrived at without any strained contention:

a) The prophecy was pronounced by the prophet Isaiah to Ahaz, king of the southern kingdom of Judah, more than seven hundred years prior to the birth of Jesus.
b) At that time Ahaz was facing the threat of invasion by the alliance of Syria and Israel to dethrone him and establish some Tabeel in his place as their puppet.
c) Ahaz thought that he could not withstand the invasion and decided to seek patronage from the then super power of the region, Tiglath-pileser III, the pagan king of Assyria.
d) God did not like that Ahaz should relinquish the liberty of the land and the people of Judah to a pagan king, who could otherwise do no harm to Ahaz or Judah.
e) It was at this stage that the prophecy was addressed to Ahaz by Isaiah as directed by the Lord Himself.
f) To all intents and contents, the prophecy was to console and ensure Ahaz that the coalition could do him no harm, was nothing to be afraid of, and was itself to be exterminated in the very near future -- within a period of a few years; and before the very eyes of his.
g) The cycle of the fulfilment of the prophecy started functioning within months, and Tiglath-pileser of Assyria, who was already entangled with the members of the coalition (it may be noted here that the very purpose of the formation of the coalition was to defend against the fast-encroaching advancements of Assyria), began to occupy vast territories of Syria and Israel; and within an year or two captured Syria; putting her king Rezin to death. As to the king of Israel, Pekah son of Remaliah, his kingdom became subject to the Assyrian invasion within months depriving him of most of his territories leaving almost only the capital Samaria under his control. King Pekah himself was assassinated by a conspiracy led by Hoshea, who succeeded him, in c.732 BC. It can thus be appreciated that both the kings who plotted against Judah were murdered and the alliance had been shattered and was no more a threat for Ahaz, which becomes a partial fulfilment of the prophecy.
h) The prophecy was fulfilled in-toto within the time span of eleven to twelve years with the fall of Jerusalem to Assyria in 722 BC.
i) Naturally, once fulfilled in letter and spirit, the prophecy had nothing to do with any event to occur at any time or stage of the history of man-kind.
j) The application of the prophecy to the birth of Jesus Christ -- an event taking place seven and a quarter centuries after the complete and perfect fulfilment of the prophecy -- is quite arbitrary, absurd and baseless.

That’s why a great number of the Christian authorities is also of the same opinion, for example:

A New Commentary on Holy Scripture observes: ‘As delivered by Isaiah, its only reference was to the immediate future [stress added], and amongst the Jews it was never connected with the Messiah: see Gore, Dissertations, 289 f.’³¹

Peakes Commentary records: ‘It is not a direct prediction of Christ, or even of a scion of David’s line who would rule his people in justice and peace (...). since the Christian affirms that this hope, and all the hope of Israel, found its ultimate fulfillment in Christ, he may say that this prophecy too points onward to him.’³²

The Seventh-day Adventist B. Commentary asserts: ‘the prediction here made had an immediate application within the frame-work of the historical circumstances set forth in the chapter. (stress added)’³³

The Broadman Bible Commentary has recorded its observations as follows: ‘A particularly important rule to remember in exegesis is that no verse of Scripture can be properly understood apart from its context (stress added). In this case the context unquestionably demands that the promised child serve as a sign to king Ahaz, thus ruling out the possibility that Isaiah was looking into the far distant future. The birth and early childhood of Immanuel were related to events that transpired in the later half of the eighth century B.C. The specific events in question were the defeat of Israel and Syria (vv. 15-16) and the invasion of Judah by the Assyrians (vv.17-25). To overlook these facts is to miss the whole point of the passage (stress added)."³⁴

From the above discussion, it is to be concluded that the prophecy relates to a specific historical background -- that of the latter half of the eighth century BC -- and should be translated and interpreted accordingly.

(To be continued)

______________________________
^1. Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls: ‘and he’ or ‘and they’ (note b14 by the editors/translators, p.615).
^2. NIV - Isa. VII:14-16, p.615.
^3. J. Barton Payne, Encycl. of Biblical Prophecy, Hodder and Stoughton,London,1973, pp.292,93 and p.666.
^4. The Bible - Mt. I:22f.
^5. J.L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1984, p.397. [758 to 698 B.C. according to W. Smith, A Dic. of the Bible, Regency Reference Library, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1967, p.267 ; and approximately between 740 and 701 B.C. according to Paul J. Achtemeier (Gen. Ed.), Harper’s Bible Dictionary, T.P.I., Bangalore, 1994, p.426.]
^6. Harper’s B. Dictionary, op.cit., p.426.
^7. According to J.L.McKenzie, op.cit., p.16; Harper’s, op.cit., p.17; The Interpreter’s, Dic. of the B., Vol.I, Abingdon Press, Nashville, NY., 1962, p,64; and Siegfried H. Horn, Seventh Day Adventist B. Dic., Review and Herald® Publishing Association, Hagerstown, p.32; and 741-726 according to W. Smith op.cit.; and 733-721 according to T.K. Cheyne and J, Sutherland Black (Editors), Encycl. Biblica,Vol.I, Watts and Co., London, E.c., 1899, p./c.95; and 735-719 BC according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., N.Y.,!901, Vol.I, p.285.
^8. Jotham was the son and successor of Uzziah or Azariah, and was king of Judah ca.750-35 BC.
^9. ‘Pekah (open-eyed), son of Remaliah, originally a captain of Pekahiah king of Israel, murdered his master, seized the throne, and became the 18th sovereign of the northern kingdom, B.C. 757-740. Under his predecessors, Israel had been much weakened through the payment of enormous tribute to the Assyrians (see esp. 2Kings 15:20), and by internal wars and conspiracies. Pekah seems to have steadily applied himself to the restoration of its power. For this purpose he contracted a foreign alliance, and fixed his mind on the plunder of the sister kingdom of Judah. (...) When, however, his (the then king of Judah, Jotham’s) weak son Ahaz succeeded to the crown of David, the allies no longer hesitated, but entered upon the siege of Jerusalem, B.C. 742. (...). The kingdom of Damascus was finally suppressed and Rezin put to death, while Pekah was deprived of at least half his kingdom (...). Pekah himself, now fallen into the position of Assyrian vassal, was of course compelled to abstain from further attacks on Judah. (...), Hoshea the son of Elah conspired against him and put him to death.’ (W. Smith’s Dic. of the B., op.cit. pp.495f.)
^10. Remaliah had been a captain of the king of Israel, Pekahiah, murdered his master and became the 18th sovereign of and reigned over Israel for 757-740 BC.
^11. Capital of Aram, which was the name of Syria in those days.
^12. ‘King of Damascus. He attacked Jotham during the later part of his reign, 2Kings 15:37; but his chief war was with Ahaz, whose territories he invaded, in conjunction with Pekah, in about B.C.741. Though unsuccessful in his siege of Jerusalem, 2Kings 16:5; Isa.7:1, he ‘recovered Elath to Syria.’ 2Kings 16:6. Soon after he was attacked, defeated and slain by Tiglath-pileser II [or III?], king of Assyria. 2Kings 16:9.’ (W. Smith, A Dic. of the B., p.563.)
‘Aramaean king of Damascus. In 735 BC he formed an alliance with Pekah of Israel against Judah, then ruled by Jotham, to compel Judah to join a coalition against Assyria. Jotham died very shortly afterwards, and his successor Ahaz offered tribute to Tiglat-pileser III of Assyria and asked for assistance.’ (J.L. McKenzie’s Dic. of the B., p.738.)
^13. His original name was Pulu. He was the sovereign of Assyria during 745-727 BC. ‘Before the accession of Tiglath-pileser Assyrian power had fallen to a low estate under a series of weak kings. Tigleth-pileser attained the throne by a Coup d`’etat of which the details are not known; he was not a member of the reigning royal family. From his accession he exhibited extraordinary ability and industry; he is the true founder of the Assyrian empire, which endured for 100 years after his death. He conquered the Aramaean tribes of Babylonia and made himself king of Babylon; this attempt to settle the Babylonian question by personal union of the two monarchies of Babylon and Assyria was imitated by some of his successors. He transported many of the peoples of Babylonia to other regions of the empire; he was the first to practice transportation on a large scale with the deliberate purpose of breaking national and tribal consciousness and uniting all subjects under the one monarchy of Assyria. (...). He conquered Galilee and Gilead in 734 BC and incorporated them into an Assyrian province. Damascus was defeated and razed in 732; this kingdom also was incorporated into an Assyrian province. Other kings of Syria and Palestine submitted and paid tribute. [J.L. McKenzie, Dic. of the Bl., op.cit., p.890.]
^14. Levant is the name for the countries of the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.
^15. Harper’s B. Dic., op.cit., p.870.
^16. Seventh-day Adventist B. Dic., op.cit.,1979, p.24.
^17. Stub means: "short end piece or stump remaining from a pencil, cigarette or similarly-shaped object; butt" (Oxf. Adv. Learners Dic., p.907)
^18. The NKJV - Isa. VII:1-9, p.687.
^19. NASB - Isa.VII:10-17. Note: The concept of the v.17 is not clear in this version. To make the concept clear, it would be desirable to look into some other translations as well:
NKJV-- "The LORD will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house--days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah."
NAB -- The LORD shall bring upon you and your people and your father’s house days worse than any since Ephraim seceded from Judah. [This means the king of Assyria.]
GNB -- "The LORD is going to bring on you, on your people, and on the whole royal family, days of trouble worse than any that have come since the kingdom of Israel separated from Judah--he is going to bring the king of Assyria.
^20. NEB - 2Kg. XVI:1-9, p.286.
^21. The Seventh Day Adventist BIBLE COMMENTARY, Review and Herald® Publishing Association, Hagerstown, 1977, Vol.4, p.132.
^22. ‘Ahaz (...) The 12th occupant of the throne of the kingdom of Judah, who reigned approximately 20 years (c. 735-c.715 B.C.), (...). After his father’s death he reigned 16 years (2Ki 16:2; 2Chr 28:1).’ (Seventh Day Adventist Dictionary Revd. Ed., p.23). J.L. McKenzie has also recorded his reigning period as 735-715 BC. in his B. Dic.(p.16).
^23. NIV - Isa. VII:14-16.
^24. The Wycliffe B. Commentary, Ed. by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, Moody Press, Chicago, 1962, 618.
^25. The Broadman Bible Commentary, Vol.5, p.216.
^26. A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Ed. Rev. J. R. Dummelow, N. Y., The Macmillan Company, 1956, p.918.
^27. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance together with Dictionaries of the Hebrew and Greek Words, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984, p.35: entry Nos.2179,2180.
^28. The Seventh Day Adventist BIBLE COMMENTARY, Review and Herald® Publishing Association, Hagerstown, 1977, Vol.4, pp.132f.
^29. Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament Vol.V, N.Y., Robert Carter & Brothers, n.a., p. 46.
^30. Matthew Henry, op.cit., p.48.
^31. A New Commentary on Holy Bible, Ed. Charles Gore, p.439.
^32. Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, Ed. Matthew Black, Nelson, 1967, p.495.
^33. The Seventh-day Adventist B. Commentary, Vol.4, p.135.
^34. The Broadman Bible Commentary, Vol.5, p.215.