 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold the young girl [Almah] is pregnant and gives birth to a son, and will call his name Immanuel [G-d is with us].” [Isaiah 7:14]
(14) “Therefore G-d will give you a sign,” meaning that since you do not want to ask a sign from Him, therefore G-d Himself, and no one else besides Him, without you even asking, will give you a sign. And ponder this: it writes “a sign,” not “miracle” or “wonder”, because since the Holy One did not intend to repeat this sign, it would be very different from the normal custom of things.
Since Ahaz and his men did not ask him, and without asking Ahaz did not deserve a major miracle, and if he escaped from the King of Aram and the King of Israel it was in the merit of his son Chizkiyahu [Hezekiah], and in the merit of his ancestors, and in the merit of Jerusalem, and it was enough to save him, and not that the Blessed One should do other signs, wonders, and amazing things for him. And therefore [the Prophet] said: “The Lord will give you a sign.” That is to say a sign that this prophecy will not be forgotten by you.
And concerning this sign, I shall consider it in two ways. The first is when he said: “Behold the Almah is pregnant and will give birth to a son, and will call his name Immanuel,” meaning the wife of Ahaz or his daughter, whom he loved, was in the beginning of her pregnancy. And perhaps Ahaz did not yet know this, and he told him that she is pregnant and would give birth to a son. And that she herself would call his name Immanuel. And that would be the sign for him that the Blessed Lord is with him and would help him and save him form these kings (of Aram and Israel).
And Rashi explained that “Behold the Almah is pregnant” refers to the Prophet’s own wife. And the sign was that she would give birth to a son and call his name Immanuel, signifying that the Lord would help them and save them. And this explanation is difficult, for it says “Almah” [young girl] and it would have been more appropriate to call her “Neviah” [Prophetess], as he said later on [Isaiah 8:3] “And I came near to the Prophetess”. Therefore it is better to explain that Almah here refers to King Ahaz’s own wife or daughter.
And behold he called her an Almah because she was young, because a young boy is called an Elem and a young girl Almah, whether she is a virgin or a non-virginal married- or single-woman. For this term Almah only refers to her age [and not to her marital status].
And given this, it is not right for us to consider that this son whom they called Immanuel was Chizkiyahu, for behold Chizkiyahu was born nine years before his father Ahaz became king. For Ahaz ruled for 16 years, and Chizkiyahu was 25 when he became king. And it appears that this prophecy of Isaiah occurred after Ahaz had ruled for 2 years. But this Almah was a second wife whom Ahaz had taken after Chizkiyahu’s mother, and this prophesied son would be her son. Or she was the daughter of Ahaz, who had gotten married only recently and was still a young girl, the king’s beloved daughter. And about her Isaiah prophesied that she was pregnant--and king Ahaz did not yet realize this--and that she would name him Immanuel with the urging of my G-d, so that this child should be a sign concerning the fate of the Nation of Israel.
And it is possible that the words “And she will call his name” refer back to Ahaz, and the Hebrew letter Tav in the word “VeKaraT” would be the Tav denoting “You will” and not the feminine Tav. To say that with all Ahaz’s wickedness, he would call him this name Immanuel. And already a sign like this has been found in a Prince who came from the Land of Yehuda, who prophesied about the birth of Yoshiah, saying [1 Kings 13:2] “Behold a son is born to the House of David, Yoshia is his name.” And this is the perfection of prophecy, that he should mention in it such a powerful detail concerning the future, and also that he will prophesy and testify in the naming of his name that this is G-d’s choice and Will.
(15) “Butter and honey he will eat. He will knowingly despise the evil and choose the good.” To teach that this child will be taught by his nursemaid to eat butter and honey, so that from training and custom he will know early on to despise the evil and to choose the good. Meaning that since he will be accustomed to eating sweet and desirous things like butter and honey, his nature will be conformed with that sweet food that he is used to and to despise the evil that is its opposite.
(16) “For before the youth will know to despise the evil and to choose the good, the land will be left desolate that you fear from its two kings.” And he mentioned that even as the child hurries to become accustomed to despising the evil and to choosing the good, still in that time that hastens to come “before the youth knows to despise the evil and to choose the good” with all the powerful instruction that his caretakers give to him, “the land will be left desolate” meaning that the land of Israel, for whom Ahaz feared due to the two Kings, meaning the king of Aram and the King of Israel that were coming to attack him. And there is no doubt that even though this prophecy was at the beginning of the pregnancy of the Queen or the king’s daughter, there still was time until she would give birth and until the child would be accustomed to choose and to desire to eat the good and sweet and pleasant things, and to despise their opposite, of about two years. And this prophecy was before the Kings attacked Jerusalem, about the same amount of time for the child’s birth and the development of his judgement, then if so this prophecy testifies to his salvation.
And it seems to me more correct that “the Land will be left desolate” was said not about the Land of Judah, but rather about the Kingdom of Aram and Israel, whose two kings Ahaz feared. And the prophet informed him that before the youth would know to despise the evil and to choose the good, the land of Aram would be desolated of Retzin, for the king of Assyria would attack him and kill him and take his Land from him, and also the Shomron and Land of Israel [the northern kingdom] would be desolated of Pekach ben Remaliah, who would be killed by Hoshea ben Elah, and the lands that they ruled over would be rid of them.
And after Isaiah mentioned this salvation, he mentioned another salvation that would be in the days of Chizkiyahu his son. That Sancheriv King of Assyria would attack Jerusalem to destroy it, and the Blessed Lord would save the city. And this is that he meant in saying:
And the Second approach is that this sign was of the salvation of the Nation from their enemies. And that G-d would help them and they would eat and be satisfied and enjoy abundant peace. And it already is written in Scriptures that a sign would be given about this. In the words of David [Psalms 86:15-16] “Turn to me and show me grace. Give Your power to Your servant and save the son of Your maidservant. Show me a sign of favor, and let my enemies fear and be ashamed. For You G-d helped me and comforted me.” Behold he called the salvation and consolation “a sign”. And so you will find in the words of Isaiah himself, who said to Chizkiyahu abut his salvation from the hand of Sancheriv [Isaiah 37:30]: “And this is the sign for you. Eat this year that which grows of its own, and so in the second year, and in the third year sow and reap and plant vineyards and eat their fruit.” And the remnant of the daughter of Yehuda that is left will make a root below and fruit above.” And he calls it a sign this salvation and that G-d will be bountiful to them in the land afterwards.
“Therefore G-d Himself will give you a sign.” And the sign is not the pregnancy and birth of the Almah. Rather that G-d will give you a sign of your salvation from your enemies. Not just this time from the hands of Retzin and ben Remaliah. But also from the hands of Sancheriv, who will attack Jerusalem in the days of Chizkiyahu. And after all this they will eat the goodness of the Land. And therefore he said in order to clarify the sign that he mentioned and when it would be: “Behold the Almah is pregnant and gives birth to a son” meaning “You will surely know that the girl who was the wife or daughter of Ahaz as I mentioned before—behold even though she is only a young girl behold she already is pregnant and will give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel, because in his days the Blessed Lord will be with Israel. And will save them from their afflictions. And therefore he said: “He will eat butter and honey” to say that two successes and two salvations will occur in his days. And as though he is a messenger of G-d on earth to announce the good news and to inform what He will do for the people. For the butter is one type of sweet and desirable thing, and the honey is another type. And they correspond to the two successes and salvations: one from the two kings rising against them: Retzin King of Aram and Pekach ben Remaliah King of Israel, who will be wiped out of the Book of Life and will be uprooted from their Kingdoms in a short while. And the second from the hands of Sancheriv, who will attack Jerusalem afterwards and will fill the whole land of Judah with his people and his soldiers. And G-d will cut them off speedily from the face of the earth, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And the reason he said “to know to despise the evil and to choose the good” is to teach the time period, as in Genesis 7:4 “in only seven more days.” And he said “from the day Ephraim turned from Yehuda” to say that in the same time that this child will learn to despise the evil and to choose the good, he will eat butter and honey.” Meaning Israel will eat, as it says later (Isaiah 8:4) “he will take up the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Shomron before the King of Assyria.” For Scripture sometimes omits the subject. And the point here is that every member of Israel will eat butter and honey, for there will be great plenty, and peace, and security, and the butter and honey will be plentiful, as will the other forms of success that they symbolize. Or that the child himself in his childhood will eat butter and honey as a sign and good omen, for the people of Judah will eat in peace and contentment all the days of this child. And Rashi favors this explanation, for he wrote: “butter and honey the child will eat, for our Land will be filled with all good.”
Answer for yourself: Now does this context remind you of Israel in the day of Yeshua and the Romans? Of course not!
And behold the Prophet immediately explained what are the two successes that the butter and honey symbolize. And of the first he said, “Before the child knows to despise the evil and to choose the good, the Land will be desolated” meaning that while the child is still a child, before he knows to choose the good and to despise the evil, Retzin and Pekach ben Remaliah will be killed and the Land that is their kingdom will be bereft of them, of whom Ahaz feared. And this is the first success that will occur speedily whole the child still is young. And then he mentioned the second success that will come after that, about which he said: “G-d will bring upon you and upon your People and upon the House of your Fathers” meaning that a different siege and dire straits will come upon them, and this would be in the days of Chizkiyahu when Sancheriv would come against him. And about this he said “And it will be on that day G-d will call a fly…” and he mentioned again his downfall saying: “on that day G-d will shave like a razor with the mercenaries…” and he mentioned after this the joy of Israel and their success and their satisfaction in the Land saying (7:21-22): “And it will be on that day that a man will raise a calf and two sheep, and from the overabundance of the milk he will eat butter, for everyone who is left in the midst of the Land will eat butter and honey. And this was the favorable sign that G-d would give them, and to which he intended in saying “butter and honey will he eat” as I have mentioned….
And the Christian Scholars have struggled to refute that this young girl [Almah] would be the wife of Ahaz or the wife of Isaiah, and they asked many difficult questions about this, and I thought to mention their claims here and to answer them in order to remove a stumbling block from the path of my People.
(1) The first doubt is that if the Almah was the wife of Ahaz then the son born would be Chizkiyahu his son. And it is proven that he already was born before this prophecy, and that the prophecy should refer to him after his birth is not possible. And if the Almah was the wife of Isaiah, how did he say after this (Isaiah 8:8): “And the poles of his wings will fill the breadth of your land Immanuel” which teaches that Immanuel will be the ruler of the Land, and Isaiah and his son were never such?
And I answer that I already have explained that Immanuel was not Chizkiyahu. For he already was born nine years before his father Ahaz reigned. But he was another son who was born to Ahaz from another wife, or the Almah was Ahaz’s daughter. And the verse that the Christians cite—“will fill the breadth of your Land Immanuel”—does not teach that Immanuel will be Lord of the Land as they claim. For the simple reading of the verse is that the army of Sancheriv will invade Yehuda, and would flood the Land until the throat “and the poles of his wings will fill the breadth of your Land Immanuel”, meaning that the poles of the soldiers of Sancheriv will fill the whole breadth of the Land of Yehuda when they would attack her. And of this they should not be afraid, for G-d is with them, as is explained in the commentary. Not that he says that the poles of the wings of Immanuel will fill the breadth of the land, for this is an error in the explanation of the simple meaning of the Scripture {ed. note: it seems to me that the fact that the verse writes “your Land Immanuel” implies that Immanuel indeed is the ruler of that Land.}
(2) And the second doubt is that if the prophet said to Ahaz (7:11) “Ask a sign to the depths or to the heights” {ed. note: could this be an allusion to what is written in Romans 10:6-8?} that the sign should be great and powerful, what was the power and strength of this sign “Behold the Almah is pregnant and will give birth to a son” for the Medical Sages can recognize through the appearance of a woman and through her urine if she is pregnant and if she is carrying a boy or a girl? And I answer this that according to both of my approaches to explaining the verses above no place is left for this doubt according to the meaning of the word “sign” and its portent and the intent of the Prophet’s words.
(3) And the third doubt is that Hoshea ben Elah reigned in the12th year of Ahaz, as mentioned in 2 Kings 17:1, and Pekach ben Remaliah already had died, and it is clear from this that when Immanuel was born Retzin and Pekach ben Remaliah already had died in the fourth or fifth year of Ahaz’ reign? And I answer that it is not obligatory that since Hoshea ben Elah was crowned in the 12th year of Ahaz King of Yehuda then Retzin and Pekach ben Remaliah already were dead at the time of this prophecy.
For in 2 Kings 15:27 it is written that Pekach ben Remaliah ruled for 20 years, and it is written there (15:16) also that in the days of Yotam King of Yehuda, father of Ahaz, G-d began to unleash on Yehuda Retzin King of Aram and Pekach ben Remaliah, and in those days Yotam died and in the 17th year of Pekach’s reign Ahaz became King of Yehuda (16:1). And if so there remain 3 years from the reign of Pekach ben Remaliah in the days of the reign of Ahaz and ben Remaliah, and during this time Retzin and ben Remaliah were terminated. Therefore they Prophet predicted to Ahaz “that before the child would know to despise the evil and to choose the good the land would be left desolate.” Meaning that this would happen in those 3 years during which those Kings were killed and uprooted from their kingdoms. Behold therefore that there is no contradiction here at all. And this prophecy was not in the fourth or fifth year of Ahaz’s reign, as the Christian Sages claim, but rather in the first or second year of his reign, for at that time Retzin and Pekach ben Remaliah joined together to attack him because of the war they already had been waging with Ahaz’s father (Yotam) before his death.
(4) And the fourth doubt is that behold he wrote after this about this child “that before the lad would know to call ‘My Father My Mother’ the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Shomron would be taken up before the king of Assyria.” And we don’t find that the King of Assyria despoiled the Shomron except when he destroyed it, in the 9th year of Hoshea ben Elah, when Ahaz already had died and his son Chizkiyahu had reigned for 6 years?
And I answer this that if these Christian men understood the simple and true meaning of prophecies this doubt would not concern them at all. For the lad of whom it is said “before he will know to despise the evil and to choose the good” they thought is the same lad of whom it is said afterwards (8:1): “And G-d said to me take up a scroll…for before the lad knows to say My Father My Mother…” And this is not so with us, for these are two distinct children one form the other. And these two prophecies were not stated at the same time. For the first prophecy that began “And so it was in the days of Ahaz” and the prophecy “And G-d will add another word to Ahaz” and the following sections all were in the days of Ahaz and the beginning of his reign, as I have mentioned. And the pregnant girl was a young wife that Ahaz took or his daughter, as I have explained. And the child who will eat butter and honey will be her son, and this child will be in the days of Ahaz. However, the section “And G-d said to me take a scroll…” and the scripture “And I drew near to the Prophetess and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son…” was years afterwards. And the prophet did not prophesy here concerning saving King Ahaz from the two kings as he had prophesied in the first prophecy [in Isaiah 7]. But he prophesied only about the destruction of Damascus and the destruction of the Shomron that occurred afterwards. And the prophetess was Isaiah’s wife, and the son born here was her son. And therefore the first child was called Immanuel to announce the salvation of the Nation and its success. And the second child, son of the prophet Isaiah, was called “Maher Shalal Chash Baz” because his purpose was to prophesy the destruction of Damascus and the destruction of the Shomron, and the two prophecies had nothing to do with one another. And if the destruction of Damascus was in the days of Ahaz, when Pillan King of Assyria attacked it and killed Retzin and conquered Damascus, as mentioned in 2 Kings 16:9. And the destruction of the Shomron was after the death of Ahaz in the 6th year of his son Chizkiyahu’s reign, this does not refute that the son born to the Prophet Isaiah would portend and teach about the destruction of both Damascus and Shomron, since they were years apart in time, since for that reason they called him two names: “Maher Shalal, Chash Baz” to teach about the two destructions, as I shall explain….
And the Christians claim in the book of the Apostle Matthew that what is written “G-d will give you a sign. Behold the Almah is pregnant and gives birth to a son and will call his name Immanuel” refers to Miriam, who became pregnant while still a virgin, and gave birth to Yeshua their G-d, and for that reason he is called Immanuel [G-d is with us]. And there are seven refutations to this:
(1) That the word “Behold” teaches about something that will take place immediately, as in (Genesis 15:4) “And behold the word of G-d came to him saying this one will not inherit from you.” (Song of Songs 2:8) “Behold this one comes.” (Isaiah 12:2) “Behold G-d is my salvation, I shall trust…” For the word “Behold” (Hinay) is related to the word Hineni (I am here and ready). And how could the verse say “Behold the young girl” concerning something that would happen in the end of days? Rather it would have written “And it will be in the end of days” or something similar from those types of expressions that refer to distant times.
(2) From what is written “Behold the Almah” and the Christian commentators thought that there is no word “Almah” in Scripture except to mean “virgin,” as they proved from what is written about Rebecca (Genesis 26:43) “Almah” and that she was “a virgin and no man had known her.” (Genesis 26:16) And also about Miriam, the sister of Aharon, it says (Exodus 2:8) “Almah” since she was a girl and a virgin. And so they decreed that the word “Almah” must mean “Virgin.” And this is not so, for it is clear to every Jew that this name in the Holy Tongue does not refer to virgin, but also can mean a non-virgin. And the proof is in Proverbs 30:18-20: “Three things are wondrous to me…the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with an “Almah.” And the next verse says “So also the way of an adulterous woman who ate and wiped her mouth and said ‘I did no sin.’” And this is a clear proof that here “Almah” is stated about a non-virgin, of whom it cannot be ascertained if a man lay with her and she became defiled or not. And to be saved from this doubt some of the Christian Scholars have written that “the way of a man with an Almah” meaning in his Elem (youth), as though the Hebrew word “beAlmah” was written with an Aleph at the end, but this is not so for it is a Hay. And some of them tried to explain symbols in the words of King Solomon, from the eagle, the snake, and the ship, that are symbols that pertain to Yeshua in his Divinity, in order to explain “the way of a man with an Almah” meaning that He entered the womb of the virgin. But they could not then explain in this manner the next verse: “So also is the way of an adulterous woman...”
(3) From what is written “Behold the Almah is pregnant” and the word “pregnant” is in present tense. That she already was pregnant, not that she would become pregnant 600 years afterwards. And if the Prophet were speaking of the future, he should have said: “Behold the Almah will become pregnant” as it says later (8:3) “and she will become pregnant and give birth to a son,” and not “is pregnant” in the present tense.
(4) “And she will call his name Immanuel.” And it is known that no one called Yeshua the Nazarene by the name Immanuel, not his mother, and not by others. And the Christian scholars already have tried to answer this, saying that “something has both an essential name and an appellate name. As a man’s name is his essential name, while his appellate name reveals details about his life. And Yeshua was his nickname, but Immanuel was his essential name referring to his Divinity.” And these words are vanity, because Scripture would not say about the essential name “And she will call his name Immanuel” but rather the appellate name, for [the Prophet adjures them and] they agree to call him this name. And of the essential name it is written (Genesis 2:19) “This is his name.” And so it should be written here: “And his name will be Immanuel” not “And she will call his name Immanuel” which indicates that he should and will be called by that name….
(5) “For before the lad will know to despise the evil and to choose the good” for this contradicts what the Christians believe, that Yeshua from the time he was born was wise to the greatest perfection. And this they also answered, saying that while Yeshua as G-d was wise from the beginning of his conception, yet as a physical being the wisdom was hidden from him for a brief time. And this also is a false assertion, for if Yeshua was G-d behold the power of G-d is unlimited. And how could the limitations of physicality impede him? And how could the Divine in him be limited, if he is the essential power of G-d?
(6) “The land that you fear will be left desolate of its two kings.” This verse is a self-explanatory contradiction to their claims, for if Ahaz was afraid of Retzin and ben Remaliah, and concerning this the Prophet gave him a sign, to assure him that his heart would not become soft or fearful, how could the sign refer to Miriam and her virginity and the conception of G-d? For the affliction was close at hand, but the sign would then refer to an event 600 years later. And they also tried to resolve this doubt, saying: this sign was not to confirm the prophecy given to Ahaz, but rather to notify him of an even greater miracle that G-d would do in the world. And therefore they said this to the House of David, to inform them that from their family would come Miriam, who would give birth to G-d, and that this would be a consequence, not a miraculous sign, of the salvation of Ahaz.
And also this claim is groundless, because in the beginning the Prophet said to Ahaz: “Ask a sign from the Lord your G-d, in the depths or in the heights.” And there is no doubt that the sign concerned his security from those kings. And when Ahaz answered him “I shall not ask and not test G-d” the Prophet said to him: “Therefore G-d Himself will give you a sign” and this shows that this sign was the same one that he told him to ask for originally. And therefore it was not a prediction of what would occur, and not of a bigger miracle to come, but rather a sign of that prophecy and security that he told him about. And therefore it is mandatory for the sign to occur before the time of the security that he promised Ahaz, since its purpose was to enable him to believe in the prophesied security.
Answer for yourself: And how could a person with any intelligence say that “before the lad knows to despise the evil and to choose the good the Land will be left desolate” refers to Yeshua, since those two kings died and left their lands 600 years before Yeshua’s birth?
We also found that the Prophet predicted to Chizkiyahu his salvation from Sancheriv, and also his escape from death and his recovery from his illness. And he gave him on all this signs and wonders in the Heavens and the earth. And he mentioned nothing of the conception of G-d. For what has this to do with this?
(7) The seventh doubt is from the continuation of the verses “G-d will bring upon you and upon your People and upon your Father’s House days that did not come since the day Ephraim turned from Yehuda: the king of Assyria.” For this shows that the Prophet did not budge from the matter of Ahaz with those kings who were attacking Jerusalem. And so he mentioned afterwards Sancheriv’s attack against her in the days of his son Chizkiyahu.
Answer for yourself: And how can the human mind tolerate that the Prophet should place, in between these two predictions that pertain to the immediate time and place, another prediction that has nothing to do with this period, but in the distant future? And what else need I add to negate this peculiar idea, since it has no support either in logic or in the Scriptural verses themselves.
Bennoah1@verizon.net