ISAIAH 7
12 But Ahaz [Achaz] said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt Yahweh.
Ask thee a sign of Yahweh thine Elohim - Isa 7:11/2 Kng 16: 2
The whole realm of nature was placed at Ahaz's disposal: he could ask for the sign, either in Sheol beneath or in Heaven above (Isa 7 vv. 10, 11). God was providing Ahaz with an opportunity to seek confirmation of the prophet's words and an evidence that He could act for his protection. Ahaz lamely declined. This was in character for he was a disappointing king.
From his sorry record in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chronicles 28 we learn that, instead of looking to God, he turned to the Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser, for help against his northern enemies. His words to the Assyrian show how little God meant to him:
"I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me" (2 Chron. 16 : 7).
This was a dangerous game for, although Tiglath-pileser obliged by killing Rezin of Damascus (v. 9), the same king marched against Ahaz and,
"so far from assisting him, pressed him hard. Ahaz stripped the house of Yahweh, the king's palace and the houses of his officers, and gave the plunder to the king of Assyria; but all to no purpose" (2 Chron. 28 : 20–21, N.E.B.).
So much for this feckless ruler who brought Judah low because of his faithlessness. What happened during his reign was precisely what Isaiah prophesied: the conquest of Damascus and Samaria by Assyria and the invasion of Judah by the same power (Isa. 8 : 1–8).
The Christadelphian, March 1874
14 Therefore Yahweh himself shall give you a sign [ot]; Behold [Hinei], a virgin [ HaAlmah (the unmarried young virgin)] shall conceive, and bear a son [Ben], and shall call his name [Shmo] Immanu El.
...hah-almah, the phrase used in Isai. 7: 14. signifies, 'the maiden, virgin, marriageable, but not married.' Mary answered this definition of the word, at the time Jesus was formed of her substance, by the creative power of Holy Spirit.
She was a marriageable, but unmarried, maiden of David's house; the mother of Jesus, whose nature like her own, was the same as David's and Abraham's, neither better nor worse; it was Sin's Flesh, as Paul tells us, while in character he was 'holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,' or 'without sin.' *
If his nature had been immaculate 'sin' could not have been 'condemned in the flesh' when he was crucified; nor could he then have borne the sins of his brethren in his own body to the tree, as Peter affirms he did. They who affirm the immaculateness of the nature or flesh of Jesus are 'Nicolaitanes,' heretics who destroy the doctrine of remission of sins, by the death and resurrection of Mary's Son.
Yea verily, 'prove all things; hold fast the good thing.' Bring everything to the test of Scripture, and receive nothing that is not proved by an harmonious collation of the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures.
We know what 'the truth as it is in Jesus' is; if then a papist, Protestant, Sectarian or Jew, bring us his 'things' we do not trouble ourselves to prove them. We throw the burden of proof on him, and demand it, in harmony with the word. We only undertake to demonstrate the truth taught by prophets and apostles.
With Infidels, Mahommedans and Pagans, we do not debate. We tell them not to prate against what they do not understand. We do not examine all sorts of errors and crochets, in hope of extracting any 'good thing' they may contain, in order to 'hold fast' to it. We do not rake in a dungheap to find gems.
We 'prove all things' presented in the Word; and when proved 'hold fast' to it as an element of 'the good.' This course we have found profitable; and would respectfully and affectionately commend it to all our readers. Amen.
Editor
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, May 1859
The next point on which we conversed was the paternity of Jesus. We undertook to show him from the prophets that be he whom he might, the Messiah promised to Israel must be both Son of David and Son of God; and that consequently the same circumstances of birth would attach to him as are testified of Jesus.
In the everlasting covenant made with David concerning his family being the royal family or house of God's kingdom of Israel, he promised him he should have a son, the throne of whose kingdom he would establish for ever. Now of this son he said,
"I will be his father, and he shall be my son;"
so that this son of David was to be both son of David and son of God. He was to be son in a sense in which no other descendant of David could be said to be son of God; and this Son, when he sits upon David's throne, is to maintain peace as long as the Moon endureth; consequently he must be immortal. And that he was intended to be David's superior, although David's son, is proved by David's calling him his Lord; saying,
"Yahweh said unto my Lord (Adoni,) Sit thou on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool."
Now David did not style Solomon his Lord, nor would he have called any of the kings descended from him his Lord if he had been contemporary with them; but now was a son promised whom he recognized as his Lord as well as Yahweh, which could only be on the principle of his being Yahweh's son as well as his own descendant, and therefore entitled to preeminence over himself in his, David's, kingdom and throne.
Now granting that the Messiah promised to Israel was to be son of David and son of God, it is evident that his generation must be divided between flesh and spirit; in other words, his mother must be a descendant of David, and his father, or begetter, the spirit or power of God.
After a similar type, Luke styles Adam, Son of God. Adam's mother was the ground out of which he was taken; but his Father was the Lord God. The primary difference between Adam and Jesus in formation was their maternity, not in their paternity—Jesus was born of flesh, Adam of the ground; but both of God. Hence they are styled the first and second Adams, and Sons of God.
God therefore having to produce a son from a daughter of Abraham and David which should be his, must have selected a virgin or a married woman. Now in the fitness of things viewed in relation to God, which was the most appropriate? Unquestionably the former.
If a married woman had been chosen there might have been ground for suspecting that the child was her husband's and not the Son of God; but by selecting a virtuous maiden suspicion was precluded.
Now the alternative here supposed was the one predetermined of God in the sign given to the House of David. Hah-almah the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Before any dispute arose between Jews and Gentiles about the meaning of almah, the Seventy, upwards of 200 years before Jesus, rendered it into Greek by hee parthenos, one who is chaste, pure, and uncontaminated.
She is styled in the psalms Yahweh's handmaid; and her son, "the son of his handmaid." Psa 86: 16, 116: 16.
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Apr 1851
Behold A VIRGIN shall conceive
Some say "a virgin" should be translated "a young woman?" Where would the "sign" be then? What would there be in the nature of sign or wonder in a young woman conceiving? Is it such a rare and extraordinary event for a young woman to conceive, that its occurrence would be "a sign?" And where is the young woman that has born Emmanuel?
How is Jesus, if the natural son of Joseph and Mary, Emmanuel—God with us? If Jesus was a mere man, he was not "God with us." If he were God with us by simply having the spirit, then all the prophets and apostles were "God with us," and there was no meaning at all in Christ being called Emmanuel.
But while discussing the suggestion that "virgin" may be changed to "young woman," we are bound to affirm its utter inadmissibility from a philological point of view. The word (almah) translated "virgin" in the passage quoted from Isaiah, is never translated "young woman," and never used in any sense other than that of an unmarried female.
This may be seen by reference to the only places of its occurrence, which are Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Cant. 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14. The word most frequently used for virgin (bethoolah) Gen. 24:16, is not the one used in Is. 7:14.
The Christadelphian, Jul 1889
The prophecy of Immanuel (Isa. 7:14).
—This was given in the first instance as a sign to Ahaz that the lands of Syria and Samaria (before whose confederate kings Ahaz quailed) should be forsaken, before the child that should be born of the appointed virgin (apparently about to become Isaiah's wife), should come to know good from evil.
This was just what happened, for within three years from the first year of Ahaz, Pekah, king of Samaria, was slain by Hoshea, and Tiglath Pileser came up against Damascus (the capital of Rezin's kingdom) and took it, and similarly against the cities of the ten tribes, carrying many of the inhabitants captive to Assyria (2 Kings 15:25–31; 16:1–9). It was while this was pending that it was said to Ahaz, king of Judah, "take heed, fear not, neither be faint hearted."
Here we have the typical and more immediate illustration of the name Immanuel in the fact that God was with Judah in the crisis of this confederacy of kings against her peace. But the prophecy having served the more immediate objects which gave it birth, it was further destined to find its chief and supreme fulfilment in the child born of Mary, some 745 years later on in Judah's history.
Hence Matthew (under the guidance of the Spirit) quotes the main features of the prophecy as applicable to Christ, declaring that "all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet," saying,
"behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel: which being interpreted, is God with us" (1:23).
The Christadelphian, Oct 1889
There is a palpable difference between "the immaculate conception" and the miraculous conception of Jesus. The doctrine of the immaculate conception has to do with Mary: the miraculous conception, with Christ himself. The one is false: the other true.
Mary was as other daughters of Adam's race—a corruptible, unclean, death-stricken woman. Such, also, in physical constitution was her son, as Paul declares (Heb. 2:14–18), and as his mission to open the way of life by death required.
But the son of Mary was also the Son of God by the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit, as the moral and divine part of His work required.
The Christadelphian, Feb 1887
Yahweh himself shall give you a sign/
‘... the egregious folly of saying that “a virgin” should be translated “a young woman?” Lest it may be so, we ask what there would be in the nature of sign or wonder in a young woman conceiving? Is it such a rare and extraordinary event for a young woman to conceive, that its occurrence would be “a sign?”
As well might it have been written “Behold, a young man shall marry a young woman.” Conception by a virgin is a marvel and a sign; conception by a young woman an everyday occurrence...
'... how is Jesus, if the natural son of Joseph and Mary, Emmanuel—God with us? If Jesus was a mere man, he was not “God with us.” If he were God with us by simply having the spirit, then all the prophets and apostles were “God with us,” and there was no meaning at all in Christ being called Emmanuel.
But while discussing the suggestion that “virgin” may be changed to young woman, we are bound to affirm its utter inadmissibility from a philological point of view. The word (almah) translated “virgin” in the passage quoted from Isaiah, is never translated “young woman, ” and never used in any sense other than that of an unmarried female. This may be seen by reference to the only places of its occurrence, which are Gen. xxiv, 43; Ex. ii, 8; Ps. lxviii, 25; Prov. xxx, 19; Cant. i, 3; vi, 8; Isaiah. vii, 14.
The word most frequently used for virgin, (bethoolah, ) Gen. xxiv. 16 is not the one used in Isa. vii, 14. The word translated “young woman” (nagara) - Ruth. iv, 12, is most frequently rendered “maiden” and “damsel,” and it is probably this fact that has suggested the attempt to get rid of Is. vii, 14, as a proof of Christ’s miraculous conception, by the assertion that young woman (married or unmarried) is interchangable with the “virgin” of the passage in question.
The suggestion is entirely false. The word means a young virgin female in the absolute sense; and we can only eliminate this idea from the passage by deleting almah the word, and substituting nagara; and even then, the unscrupulous critic who would dare upon such a liberty, would not be much assisted in his designs, for even the substituted word would more naturally bear the construction of ‘virgin’ than ‘young woman.’
The Ambassador of the Coming Age, Dec 1867.Yahweh himself shall give you a sign/
'... the egregious folly of saying that "a virgin" should be translated "a young woman?" Lest it may be so, we ask what there would be in the nature of sign or wonder in a young woman conceiving? Is it such a rare and extraordinary event for a young woman to conceive, that its occurrence would be "a sign?"
As well might it have been written "Behold, a young man shall marry a young woman." Conception by a virgin is a marvel and a sign; conception by a young woman an everyday occurrence...
'... how is Jesus, if the natural son of Joseph and Mary, Emmanuel—God with us? If Jesus was a mere man, he was not "God with us." If he were God with us by simply having the spirit, then all the prophets and apostles were "God with us," and there was no meaning at all in Christ being called Emmanuel.
But while discussing the suggestion that "virgin" may be changed to young woman, we are bound to affirm its utter inadmissibility from a philological point of view. The word (almah) translated "virgin" in the passage quoted from Isaiah, is never translated "young woman, " and never used in any sense other than that of an unmarried female. This may be seen by reference to the only places of its occurrence, which are Gen. xxiv, 43; Ex. ii, 8; Ps. lxviii, 25; Prov. xxx, 19; Cant. i, 3; vi, 8; Isaiah. vii, 14.
The word most frequently used for virgin, (bethoolah, ) Gen. xxiv. 16 is not the one used in Isa. vii, 14. The word translated "young woman" (nagara) - Ruth. iv, 12, is most frequently rendered "maiden" and "damsel," and it is probably this fact that has suggested the attempt to get rid of Is. vii, 14, as a proof of Christ's miraculous conception, by the assertion that young woman (married or unmarried) is interchangable with the "virgin" of the passage in question.
The suggestion is entirely false. The word means a young virgin female in the absolute sense; and we can only eliminate this idea from the passage by deleting almah the word, and substituting nagara; and even then, the unscrupulous critic who would dare upon such a liberty, would not be much assisted in his designs, for even the substituted word would more naturally bear the construction of 'virgin' than 'young woman.'
The Ambassador of the Coming Age, Dec 1867.
Is it a very extraordinary thing that a young woman should have a baby, a married young woman? The idea of God selecting an incident of every-day occurrence as a sign, is sufficiently absurd to bring its own condemnation. The sign which the prophet here says God would give to Ahaz was to be a real sign and a sign direct from God.
The name of Immanuel pointed forward to a flesh-manifestation of God himself in connection with a virgin of the house of David... Jesus is the mere Greek dressing of Yah-hoshua -- otherwise Joshua; which means God (Yah), shall save (shuah). Therefore, the name "Jesus" expresses the same doctrine as Immanuel: viz., that the child so named was God-manifest in the flesh, sojourning with Israel for their salvation.
Bro Roberts - Was Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah