Old Testament Theology - Lesson 12

We saw some of the roots of the Davidic promise of the law. Let’s go to the issuing of the promise in the form of prophets, and the heart of our analysis must be 2 Samuel 7. 2 Samuel is going to focus on the Davidic promise. Later on in the New Testament we will note the fact that this is not just the fulfillment of the Davidic promise but is also the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. This becomes pulled together for us, but in 2 Samuel 7 we are at ground zero for the Davidic promise.

Let’s note our context. David rules over Israel roughly 1010 years BC to 970 years BC; 1010 to 970 BC. That’s a rounded number; it’s at least accurate within 10 years, which is about what we can do at this point in biblical history.

But, you recall that Israel has come out of the era of the judges. They came out of that era asking for a king, as Moses had said would occur. Though he didn’t state exactly when, he did say they would ask for and receive a king. From Deuteronomy 17, and as Jacob had already said in Genesis 49, there is coming a ruler. What may surprise us is the fact that the first king is not from Judah at all, but from Benjamin.

David, however, is from the tribe of Judah, so perhaps we can say, by the time he’s king—well it seems to me, well, we finally got it right; if there is going to be a king, it ought to be from Judah. So then, remember that though David was chosen king in 1 Samuel 16, he must suffer many humiliations and difficulties. He must go through many painful toils and snares before he gets to be king, and a lot of political intrigue.

One of the best treatments and fairest, I think, and on the one hand reverent, but also accurate, and doesn’t go into the worst from David, would be John Bright’s History of Israel, because Bright gratefully admits that God’s at work in all this, but he also notes that David benefits politically from the activities of his friend Joab, who rules the army. He assassinates Saul’s main army man, Abner, and it’s not all sweetness and light and above board how David becomes king. His main rival is beheaded by some of David’s adherents, but David punishes them, has them put to death. But still, David benefits from some political intrigue.

Once king, he continues what Saul had begun, and does it better really. He defeats the Philistines and subdues the small nations around them, the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites. And you’ll recall that Balaam’s prophecy in Numbers 24 had said eventually that would occur, that somebody would come from Jacob, would defeat Moab, who was primary in that oracle, and the others.

So David defeats his enemies. He centralizes Israel’s government in an unlikely place, in Jerusalem, which at that time was not an Israelite city, right? There is no history attached, like Bethel or Dan or Beersheba; there is no Israelite history associated with Jerusalem to that point, and that may be why he did it. It was at the edge of his tribe, Judah, but there were always factions—regional factions—and fighting in Israel, weren’t there?

The north, which had most of the land and money, resented being ruled by people from the south. Benjamin’s southern tribe had once fought a civil war against all the others. Remember that from Judges? And Saul’s heirs do not, exactly, automatically drop their prominence and swarm to David’s side, do they, in the rest of Samuel?

So perhaps David believed that a new city next to his tribe, without some of the old allegiances, would be the best thing to do. But he centralized the capital, and he centralized the worship there by bringing the Ark of the Covenant, albeit in what he says is almost contentiously, or sadly, a tent. He doesn’t believe the Ark of the Covenant has a fit home, and he wants to build a temple, but he localizes the worship there, not at Shiloh, not anywhere else, but in his capital, in his tribe, and his place.

Now this too—though we didn’t talk about it—this too was something Moses said would occur. He says it several times in Deuteronomy: “The Lord will choose one place.” And by the time the temple is built, the Lord has said He has chosen this place, Jerusalem.

So historically, then, David is finally ascended to the throne. He has finally gotten all 12 tribes under his rule. He has subdued nations around him. He has centralized the government, centralized the worship, and with a heart full of gratitude.

2 Samuel 7:1, “Now it came about when the king lived in his house, and the Lord had given him rest on every side from his enemies, that the king said to Nathan the prophet, ‘See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains.’ Nathan said to the king, ‘Go, do all that is in your mind, for the Lord is with you.’”

I’ve heard people criticize Nathan fairly severely for not praying about it. I think that’s a bit much, but the word of the Lord comes to Nathan. Doesn’t say to him, “Hey, why didn’t you pray about it?” Just says, “Go to my servant David and ask him, ‘Are you the one to build me a house?’”

Now, that’s an interesting question, but then in verse 6, God goes on to say to David, “I haven’t been miffed because you haven’t built a temple.” “For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle.” So again, God is not upset. He does not feel put out. He does not feel cold in the winter or overly warm in the summer. And he says, “When did I ever command people to build a temple?” So in other words, you have not been disobedient. God affirms David’s sentiments without allowing him to build a temple.

God goes on to talk about what he, God, has done for David. Verse 8: “Now therefore, say to my servant David…” Servant theology becomes important in Messianic theology, “my servant David,” and he says, “I took you from the pasture (from following sheep), to be ruler over my people, Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies… I will make you a great name, like the names of the great men who are on the earth.”

That promise is similar to the one made to whom?

Student: Abraham.

Sure, to Abraham.

“I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, that they may live and not be disturbed.” He says in verse 11 that has been occurring since he commanded judges; that he has been giving them rest.

Now, verse 12, promises to David: “When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers,” promise number one, “I will raise up (your seed, your zara) your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom.”

Promise number one: David’s direct descendant’s going to succeed him on the throne. Doesn’t sound like much until you realize Saul didn’t establish a dynasty, till you read the history of Israel and you see how much intrigue and murder and death and stuff goes on, and in the history of human beings in general. But he says, “Your descendant who will come from you, I’ll establish his kingdom.”

Second promise, verse 13, “He shall build a house for my name.” It is Solomon who will build the temple. At this point, it doesn’t name Solomon, right? Solomon isn’t alive yet, but David knows one of his seed – zara theme all the way through, from Genesis 3 on – he’s going to build a temple. “And I will establish…” This is the stunner, “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.”

So the promise made to David is an enduring promise like the one made to Abraham. “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.”

But then we divide the question again, that which is to Solomon and that which is forever. “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me.” Still talking about Solomon. I have heard some launch off into how that’s Christ because he’s God’s Son. Remember that in Old Testament theology the Messiah is God’s greater Son because the Davidic kings are called God’s sons, the ones that he has favored. His—but there is a greater son coming. And here, while we know it’s Solomon, “when he commits iniquity…” Solomon does, doesn’t he? “…I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but my lovingkindness shall not depart from him as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you.” It’s almost like Saul’s an object lesson here.

So that what David comes to find out is that, even though Solomon may be an imperfect ruler, the promise of an eternal kingdom stands anyway. So there are going to be flawed people coming before God’s greater Son. Verse 16, “‘Your house and your kingdom shall endure before me forever; your throne shall be established forever.’ In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.” So here, the promise has been issued.

And of course, some of this language, as we mentioned, sounds to some scholars like the Abrahamic covenant. And I want to put the title of three good books on the board so you can—these are works that you might purchase, check out, and/or use in your studies of Messianic theology.

The first one is Christopher Wright, Old Testament scholar, author of books on Old Testament ethics. I think, Susan, that this is the guy I mentioned to you who writes a lot about the land. He’s associated with John Stott’s ministry now, I think, kind of the international director of it.

He also has a book entitled Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament and it’s not a heavily documented book. In fact, he said he had always wanted to write a book in which he would state what he learned from the Scriptures and not use footnotes; this is what he does, but it’s a good and fair treatment.

Walter Kaiser, Jr., I mentioned him before: The Messiah in the Old Testament. He is also the author of Toward an Old Testament Theology, and he writes a lot about promise and fulfillment.

Did I have you read him for today or tomorrow? Out of your Flowering of Old Testament Theology? May well have done. If you look puzzled, it either means I didn’t, or we haven’t read it yet. But that’s a good readable for him. He’s trying to fit the whole of the Scripture into the promise of the Messiah. If he can’t do it textually, he will do it by an era and what’s going on in a time frame.

Both of these, a British evangelical and an American evangelical, and then somebody for the 19th century, someone somewhat notorious for this and that, but your old friend C.A. Briggs of Brown, Driver and Briggs, if you ever use that lexicon – that’s Briggs’ Messianic Prophecy.

It’s very interesting that in some ways, though Briggs is a historical critic and a lot of other things, in some of the Messianic prophecies that he finds in the Old Testament, he works at least, if not more, conservatively than Wright and Kaiser. 

Now, it has been awhile, but it’s interesting to me that the more liberal scholars these days haven’t been doing much on Messianic Theology. I can’t remember if it’s “he who cometh” or “he that cometh.” But about 50 years ago, Sigmund Mowinckel that some of you know from Psalms scholarship, He That Cometh, an Old Testament Messianic theology, and of course, to the extent that you can in systematic theology, you’ll get someone—and I’m trying to think of non-evangelicals now—Karl Barth does a lot with Messianic theology in his volumes on reconciliation, and really the Old Testament scholars who are neo-orthodox or even farther left, haven’t been doing much. But the systematic theologians of that bent still will deal with Messianic Theology as they deal with Christology, so you can take a look there.

Student: [Inaudible]

Van Groningen would be one, and also—I’m trying to think what are the titles of it; maybe just Messianic Theologies, and also… Van Groningen is V-A-N G-R-O-N-I-N-G-E-N.

And then also, if you want to see a Biblical theological approach that does more than the Old Testament, but is from an Old Testament scholar, Willem Vangemeren, The Progress of Redemption, straightforward salvation history approach to the issue. Van Groningen is good because he does a lot of exegetical work. At times, I’ve wondered if we are not forcing the Messiah onto some texts, but you know those things happen; you can force worse things onto a text, and I certainly have. With love and respect, I always say there are the reformed, the utterly reformed and then the TRs: the totally reformed. [laughter] I don’t know if you’re utterly or totally, I don’t know, but anyway, we would have strong agreements and strong disagreements at certain points. It’s hard to have a mild disagreement with someone who is totally reformed or totally Arminian, or totally anything. 

But anyway it’s, Van Groningen, Vangemeren – both of them really Dutch Calvinists in their—and Willem Vangemeren is. If you haven’t had him here you ought to ask them to have him either for lectures or for class because he is an excellent Old Testament theologian, very much in the strong salvation history approach to the text, very linguistically oriented because he is the editor of the International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology. You know, five volumes—very understandable once you get his accent, because he is Dutch. 

There are others. These are extremely readable and fairly straightforward, so if you were going to teach a series or preach a series in your church, say at Advent time, or at any other point in time, that might also be a good way for those of you who follow a church here if you ever wonder what to do with the 26 or so weeks of Pentecost. [laughter] Talk about a long season—you might lay some foundation that traditional Advent time doesn’t offer you. You’ll find a lot of correspondence between the Davidic and the Abrahamic covenant at this point.

Briggs notes the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15, the seed of Abraham in Genesis 19, the seed of David here. A skeptic would say, “Well, just because zara is used all over the Old Testament…” But it’s interesting, though, that when you’re talking about descendant, the same word is used here; it would at least make you think.

Also, the promise of renown, also the promise of the theme of calling Abraham out and calling David out, the issue of blessing. There’re a lot of correspondences here. To be fair, you have to ask if it’s simply the type of literature involved that calls it out, or whether it’s trying to draw the two together.

Don’t know here, but in Isaiah, the explicit bringing them together is done, so it’s for sure that other places in the Old Testament they bring them together by name, so here David is at least compared in away to Abraham. That’s Briggs.

Kaiser offers seven provisions in the Davidic covenant. You know the different blessings that we were talking about. He lines them all out. He compares them to the Abrahamic covenant, and chief of the Davidic provisions is the fact, for him, that God calls David “my servant,” that’s primarily because servant theology will be important in Isaiah and elsewhere. He calls Solomon “my son,” which becomes significant because of the son theology in Psalms. And third, that he declares the covenant eternal.

Kaiser notes the importance of the woman and the seed, and then Kaiser draws out several things, I would cite servant, son, and eternal as significant points for future reference in Messianic Theology.

Well, the covenant with David includes an eternal kingdom. So I mean, I would say it’s the same thing. He calls it… declares the covenant eternal, and I would say that’s a good question of distinction. I think he would say the covenant is eternal because the kingdom is eternal. David makes quite a response of gratitude, but we won’t labor over that at this point.

So, after 2 Samuel 7, you are aware that the law’s focus on Judah has become a focus on David, right? It has become more specific. We started Genesis 3 with the seed of the woman. In a way, you could say that could be any kid born from now on, but it specifies, then, Judah as the ruler, focuses upon David as the ruler forever, focuses on David and his descendant’s role as servant, son, and ongoing kingdom. So I would borrow from Kaiser there.

So on the one hand, we’ve gotten clarity as to whose family in Judah we’re going to focus on, but now at this point having gotten some clarity, now opened up a whole set of questions. In what sense is this king, eternal or otherwise, going to bless all nations? In what sense is this Messianic at all?

So about the time you get certain things lined out, you then have some other ones, but we see here David’s the focal point for an eternal kingdom. His seed, like the seed of Abraham and the seed of Eve, are significant.

At the end of the former prophets, what we typically call the historical books, but the end of the former prophets, from this point on Judah has nothing but Davidic kings, right? With one exception; Athaliah rules for a while, but in general, the authors of the Bible accept no one except Davidic kings as legitimate kings in Judah.

The northern tribes after the death of Solomon go off in their own kingdom, and they do not have a Davidic ruler, but so serious is the text about tracing the Davidic ruler that the last person noted in 2 Kings, the end of the history, is a Davidic king who has been in exile for thirty-some years and who is elevated above other kings amongst the exiles in Babylon.

So the text becomes dedicated to tracing the Davidic line; the promise is to David. And, as we will see later, in the book of Psalms, say, Psalm 89, which is a psalm about how the nation had fallen because of its sin, it concludes with a question: What happened to the Davidic promise then? If there is no king of Israel, period, what happened to the Davidic promise of always having a— So what happened to this eternal kingdom? And perhaps 2 Kings is trying to answer that question. There is still a Davidic king around, even if he doesn’t get to rule. We don’t know if that’s the intent, but the point is it’s not just skeptics like you or me asking, what about this kingdom? The Bible itself asks the question. What happened, then, to the Davidic king?

At this point in Messianic theology, you see where we are. We have a focus upon the seed of the woman, we have a focus upon the seed of Abraham, we have a focus upon Judah and David; they’re getting more specific. We have a sense that there is going to be an eternal kingdom, but we do not yet know how this will bless all nations, nor do we know exactly how this will eliminate the sin problem.

And I guess one of the things I’m trying to do as we walk through this, I want to keep an eye on New Testament theology at this point. But I want us to have a sense of what the Old Testament people had then, so that when we read that David had faith in God—you know, texts like Hebrews 11 or in Romans 4—we’re going to have a sense that it was real faith; there was information there but that there was still a lot to come. 

So the seeds, or the roots of the promise, are in the Pentateuch, in the Law. The actual giving of the promise is in the former prophets, and in the Prophets and Writings the promise is developed. And it is these passages that we have come to know, mostly in Christian circles, as Messianic promises.

But my point is if you don’t have what we have already seen, we won’t know from which the prophets derived their statements and we won’t see how God is keeping faith with promises made. As Jesus said, “when Moses wrote of me,” and these other texts, but I admit that’s a bit of work to slog through. I understand that.

So then, now the texts maybe we know more about. We will sample some Messianic texts because the Prophets and Writings have many, many of them. And in your test paper for next time, it might be that you could develop one of those themes. You say, I think, you know House has admitted you can only do so much, so I’d like to develop one. Obviously, it might be helpful to you if it’s a stream you already know or one that you want to develop.

But Isaiah is the first book of the latter prophets, and Isaiah is going to pick up two themes in particular. Those themes are that the coming Savior is a righteous ruler, and the other theme is that he is a servant of God. It’s as if they assume—

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. House: First book of the latter prophets. Former prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Latter prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve; the Twelve are treated as one book in the Hebrew canon.

Student: [Inaudible]

Dr. House: In the Writings, yes.

It’s interesting how the Writings unfold. You start with Psalms, go to Job, and I think it’s in the current Christian mind that we marvel at that. But in Psalms, if we just remember that half of them are laments. We don’t know, or we often forget, if half the Psalms are lament, it won’t surprise us so much that Job’s next. I mean, I just don’t think it would. It seems more natural, because the Psalms raise a lot of questions about what God’s doing in history, how he is doing it. A lot on evil and suffering in the Psalms, my goodness. Then you have Proverbs, which is a sister to Job because of its interest in wisdom literature. 

Then you have some interesting connections starting. Proverbs 31 ends in, what? Virtuous woman, yep, virtuous wife, and she is a busy lady. Then the next book in the Hebrew canon is Ruth because, though Proverbs ends in what amounts to a wise a virtuous woman, a lot of its space has been taken up with what is a wise and virtuous man. And in Ruth we have examples of Boaz and of Naomi and Ruth, and Ruth is a virtuous woman; the traits you find in Proverbs 31 you find in Ruth, really.

Then after Ruth, which is among other things, is a love story, you get Song of Solomon. So you can see some natural progression that is thematic as well as Ruth and Song of Solomon are used at certain festivals in later years.

But then you have Ecclesiastes after Song of Solomon. It’s almost like the youth group doesn’t want to get too excited after Song of Solomon, so we are going to have Ecclesiastes. So on the one hand, you can see  how exciting things can be when they go well and then how difficult they can be when they don’t.

Then you have Lamentations, which kicks off—obviously, it has the same tone in many ways as Ecclesiastes -- it kicks off the interest in the writings on the exile.

That’s when you get Esther and Daniel together as exilic books, and then Ezra and Nehemiah, Chronicles as books about rebuilding, actually, you know, coming along. So, it is not that the Old Testament canon treats Ezra and Nehemiah as if they are not historical; it gives them a different emphasis.

The other thing that’s interesting about it, they just expected that their people knew the history. It is our problem to have to read Ezra and Nehemiah after 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles to know what’s going on; it was not their problem.

Isaiah, as we’ve already seen, is a prophet who works during difficult days. Of course, that becomes a standard line about the prophets. It’s almost as if, if they weren’t difficult days, the Lord wouldn’t have need of them.

So Isaiah prophesied 740 to 700, roughly, and he sets forth a problem in Isaiah 1 to 5. The problem with 8th century Israel is that they are sinning against God, oppressing one another, coming to the temple offering sacrifices that are abhorrent to God because of their wicked hearts. That’s the first five chapters of Isaiah.

It ends with a song on a vineyard. God planted a wonderful vineyard and somehow the vine went bad, decided to sin.

What’s God gonna do? He announces a day of judgment. He announces that all these things are coming, but what’s he going to do? Chapter 6, he calls a prophet to preach to the people; that’s one thing he is going to do. But then, starting in Isaiah 7, you see something else he is going to do that is already based in the history we’ve seen. He’s going to send a Savior. This is always God’s response, to call servants and to send the Servant Savior. That’s always, if you get right down to it, that’s still God’s antidote, right? Wherever you go in your ministry, you remember you are a part of a twofold plan. 

So he calls a prophet; a holy God, in Isaiah 6, calls a prophet who recognizes his own sin, to go to an even more sinful people, to what result? God tells Isaiah they will not listen to you. What effect will your preaching have in general? It will cause their eyes to glaze over, their ears to become dull. They will do this so they won’t have to repent and turn to God. That’s Isaiah 6:9-10.

So the prophet who was so enthusiastic about going for God, asks how long? Typical Biblical question: how long? So God tells him until cities are devastated, until the nation lies in ruin, and he describes Israel like a tree that has been cut down, hauled away, and then the stump has been set on fire.

Now this comes about in Isaiah’s time because all of Judah is conquered, all the 53 cities—we’ve already talked about this in light of Isaiah 40—and Jerusalem itself is devastated and starved and bare. I mean it is just a burnt up stump of a tree. That’s what’s left.

So Isaiah is not given a happy word, is he? [Laughing] How long, and what will be the evidence of his ministries effectiveness and truthfulness—that’s all that will be left.

Student: [inaudible]

Well, I use those terms synonymously, unfortunately. But the truth is, in his career, both. In 722, of course, the northern tribes are devastated by Assyria, and Judah in 701 is the stump that is burnt up.

Isaiah has a tough ministry. Not as tough as Jeremiah, but one of the things God is going to do, though, begins in chapter 7, in one of the famous (maybe some would say infamous because of its difficulty), Messianic passages.

In Judah, they have a king named Ahaz, chapter 7 verse 3, “The Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out now to meet Ahaz.’” Ahaz was king roughly from 735 to 715, and during this time, as the first two verses of the chapter indicate, Assyria is the dominant nation.

You had a few choices with Assyria. They demanded first that you give them tribute money. If you didn’t give it, they would try to put their king on your throne so that he would help you give the money. If that didn’t work, they would come and destroy you. Like all bullies, they preferred to get the money, but if they couldn’t get the money, they would terrorize you and destroy you.

Now, the smaller nations around Judah were trying to fend off the Assyrians by having an alliance together. Ahaz decided, rather than join the alliance, which he considered doomed to failure, he would make a pact with the Assyrians.

That’s dining with the devil, for sure.

Isaiah says, you should consider a third option, that is, keeping your covenant with the Lord, and then you will not need to be in league with these or in league with Assyria. To be honest, though, being in league with Assyria or trusting in the Lord had one of the same results. That is that all these little nations were going to threaten and send troops against Judah to try to draw them into the confederacy of countries against Assyria.

So basically, what Isaiah is going to say is, “Look, these people are going to fight you anyway; why don’t you do what’s right?” And never forget in your ministries that if people are going to oppose you anyway, whether you do right or wrong, that should make it easier to do what’s right; it makes it easier to do what you have to do.

So Ahaz still sticks with Assyria. God in his mercy sends Isaiah to tell him that’s not necessary. Verse 3, “The Lord said, ‘Go out to meet Ahaz, you and your son, Shear-Jashub.’” The boy’s name means ‘a remnant shall return.’ That’s a hopeful sign, right? At least a remnant will return; that’s more hopeful than ‘none of us will return.’ And notice that he takes the boy with him. The boy has something to do with the word. 

So he said, “Go meet the king,” verse 4. Tell him, “Take care and be calm, have no fear and don’t be fainthearted.” This is a message of mercy. Don’t worry, Ahaz. He says, they’ve said (verse 6), “Go against Judah and terrorize it and make for ourselves a breach in its walls…”

Verse 7, “It shall not stand nor come to pass.” God, in his mercy, is sending the prophet and his son to be a prophetic word to this king.

Verse 10, it’s even more; the grace is even further extended. “The Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, ‘Ask a sign.’” You know this goes against the grain of biblical truth, right? It’s very rare that God says “ask a sign.”

So again, he’s not only sent a prophet, and the prophet’s son is an object lesson. He has not only got a word of comfort and a word of hope and a word of freedom, he is told, “Here, pick a sign, ask whatever you want.” So later on, Hezekiah says, “Well, make the shadow go the opposite way of normal.”

Gideon, one of the few offered—God doesn’t say to everybody to ask a sign. So he says to Gideon to get this fleece, wet one time; dry the other; something unusual. Ahaz all of a sudden sounds pious, “I won’t ask and I won’t test the Lord.” Why is it not testing the Lord? Because the Lord offered it to him. It’s testing the Lord to demand a sign when it’s not offered. So basically, he is refusing the whole oracle object lesson and promise.

So?

“Listen now, 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?” So the Lord will give you a sign.

Now, remember this sign is supposed to be a big sign, or it seems to be; ask a big sign, high as heaven, deep as a grave. Therefore, the Lord will give you a sign. “Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel (God with us). He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. But before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.”

Now of course, this whole passage has sparked a whole history of controversy. Because Matthew 1:23 says the virgin birth is a fulfillment of this passage, and this has led some to say, “See, the New Testament will do anything to a passage to make it work for Jesus’ sake, that Jesus may be the ultimate fulfillment of this, but there is no way that in its original context, Isaiah 7:10-16 is about a virgin-born person.”

And the argument goes like this, and you can read it in a variety of commentators. The Lord himself will give you a sign: A maiden, in other words, a woman, she’ll bear, and before the boy knows good and evil, the land, the two kings you dread, will be forsaken. In other words, it can’t be Jesus because you’ve got in short order a kid being born, living a couple years, kings being gone. That’s how the argument goes.

However, note Herbert Wolf’s commentary on Isaiah the variety of commentators that do something along the following in response. First of all, it’s not much of a big sign for just a woman to get married and have a baby. Therefore, in this case, you’d say the miracle would have to be the timing, because there’s no big miracle… No offense to all of us, who some of us our parents were happy to hear that we were coming… My mother came to accept that over time. [laughter]

But understand it’s not a great miracle for babies to be born in the sense of an extraordinary occurrence; just go to the global center and watch the clock rock. It’s not to minimize people being made in God’s image or anything else.

“So you’d have to at this point say it would just be the timing that was the miracle, but the sign itself of a child being born,” Wolf says, “is surely a bigger thing, and it says the word can mean maiden in the sense of a woman of marriageable age, but it can also simply mean a woman without sexual experience.”

Now then, he will eat curds and honey, according to Alec Motyer, which is spelled M-O-T-Y-E-R, I pronounced it “Mah-cher” for a long time before I was corrected by people who knew Motyer [“muhtair”]. And I know he has been here to speak… But Motyer says that is the food of a peasant. Immanuel, the person ‘God with us,’ is going to eat the food not of royalty, but of peasants, and connects that to the life of Jesus. 

Jesus is virgin born. Jesus is God with us. Jesus is living among the poor.

Verse 16, “For before the boy” and the ‘hey’ on there, the definite article, could also mean ‘this boy’—one must decide—“…will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, and the land of whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.”

Wolf and Motyer and others note that Shear-jashub has been brought along as an object lesson. Before this boy, Shear-jashub, knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. There are two boys involved here: Shear-jashub, the son of Isaiah, and Immanuel, who is yet to come.

If this is the case, and I think it is, it is in keeping with Isaiah’s practice of constantly talking about current and future events, and you really have to be awake in Isaiah to know which one he is doing. He is not always talking about the future. He is not always talking about the present, and he often brings them together at the same, and this is what I think is occurring here.

At this point, if indeed this is a Messianic prophecy, we could say that the virgin birth is important as a sign. The name is important as a statement of fact that God is with them. Humility is important, humble origins in verse 15, which is, according to Motyer, another way of telling Ahaz, “Your lineage is going down. By the time Immanuel comes, the heir to the throne is going to be eating peasant’s food.”

And you’ll note that Matthew and Luke take some pains to give Christ’s genealogy through David to say he is the legitimate heir of David, but he is born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth. You have to wonder, if you go to Nazareth to hear a lecture as to how small that town was when Jesus was there and how humble it was; maybe it was fewer than 200 inhabitants, mostly dwelling in caves that had been fitted like houses. And below the Church of the Annunciation, they have some excavated there and fitted out to look like it would have at that time. Pretty humble.

So, even if you have questions about this text, which I think can be worked out, Isaiah 9 is pretty clear.

Student: [inaudible]

Dr. House: And that’s why I think Wolf’s interpretation is correct. Wolf’s point is that the New Testament writers didn’t have to do any special pleading. They interpreted this text the way he just did, which is virgin birth. Immanuel is a messianic promise; so are the curds and honey. ‘This boy’ must not be Immanuel, but Isaiah’s son.

There are two kids involved, Immanuel and Shear-Jashub, both of whom have symbolic names. So Matthew 1:23 absolutely reads the passage as a fulfillment. No one disputes that. The dispute, and the reason you go through this text like this, is to the extent of what scholars think the original context was.

Did Matthew just find a phrase? Did he think Jesus was God, and he found Immanuel and that’s God with us, and Jesus was virgin born, and you had this passage, so you applied it to Jesus even though it’s not the original context?

A lot of liberal scholars would do that, and a lot of conservative scholars, rather than trying to see if there is a context in which the New Testament writer is accurate, both contextually and theologically, would just say, “Well, it’s irrelevant. It’s a fuller, talking about, well, Christ fulfills it, whether it was intended or not.”

I find that to be quicksand, honestly, because I think it’s a legitimate question, then, for someone who doesn’t believe in the virgin birth, in the Christian tradition or outside of it, to say “Well, okay, then how dependable are these predictions anyway; if they can rework them any way they want to?” It’s not something you ought to be able to claim as evidence of the New Testament inspiration.

Student: [Inaudible]

Dr. House: They would say it’s not a virgin per se, knowing in the New Testament, Mary says “How’s this going to be since I’ve never known a man.” That’s pretty clear. They would say, “Well it’s not a virgin-virgin; it’s just somebody of that age, a woman of marriageable age.”

Which is true; that is a possible translation, but in context, it doesn’t seem to work. It’s also equally true that “virgin-virgin” is an accurate possibility for it, and so when you have two possibilities, you go by context.

You also go, in some ways, by translation traditions, and the Septuagint, before there was ever a Christian church, translated it clearly as virgin as in no sexual experience. That’s the way they understood it; that’s the way they thought. So before there was a Christian church, there wasn’t interpretation, because translation is minimal interpretation; we all know that. Sometimes it’s a lot of interpretation—has to be—but there was interpretation that had in 7:14 ‘virgin,’ meaning virgin woman with no sexual experience.

But I do want to hasten to say that those who translate this as a woman of marriageable age or something like it are not necessarily just being obstinate against the Scriptures; that is one possible translation of the word in other texts.

Well, I think Matthew is working contextually both in his own time and in Isaiah’s time. Then in Isaiah 9:1-7 (I guess if I had to say if I have a favorite Messianic text, this is mine. That’s worth nothing, just is) – “But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times he treated the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on he shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.”

Well, what’s all that?

Galilee, as you know, is in the northern part of Israel, right? Sea of Galilee is north, Dead Sea south, Jordan River runs one to the other,125 miles by 40 or 50 miles wide. Okay. In Galilee, that was kind of the northern door to Israel, right? Where would Babylon and Assyria and other conquering nations have entered the country? Where would nations who wanted to do battle with Egypt, which was in the south, where would they have entered?

Right up there in Galilee.

So, in a way, no part of Israel knew the misery that Galilee knew. The other thing was, remember those armies had to be sustained off the land? Galilee was the best region to get fruit, food and stuff on your way. And then they were also the last place these armies came coming back. So if they marched out in the spring to go to war, they would devastate the northern part, go down for war, and then come back in the fall and take what was left.

So the northern part of the kingdom, Galilee, they had suffered plenty. But there is going to be a time in which they are glorious.

So, verse 2, “The people who walk in darkness will see a great light. Those who live in a dark land, the light will shine on them.” They are still talking about Galilee, the Gentiles.

So, verse 3 promises, “You shall multiply the nation, you shall increase their gladness.”

Verse 4, “you shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders, the rod of the oppressor, as at the battle of Midian. For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult, and cloak rolled in blood, will be burning, fuel for the fire.” Peace is the promise, right?

Now then, we are about to get a Messianic promise, but we have also just gotten the context that caused 1st century Jews the most problem in accepting Jesus as the Messiah.

Let’s be honest about that. We’ve been given a promise of peace, and in Isaiah you always have to ask: is this a short-term promise or a long-term promise?

Verse 6, “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders; and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God…” which is the only text in the Old Testament that equates the Davidic heir, the greater son of David, with God, overtly. “Mighty God, Eternal Father,” which is nearly to say the same thing, “Prince of Peace,” so these are the names.

He’s going to have all the counsel of a wise king, all the power not only of a mighty king, but of God, all the endurance needed to fulfill the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, and the element of peace. There will be no end to the increase of his government or of peace on the throne of David.

Of course, it must be “on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish and uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.”

So we have clear-cut royal imagery here: the Davidic line, government on his shoulders, the emphasis on David and on a righteous and eternal ruler. We are about to see in this text a hermeneutical principle that will help us as we look at Psalms. It is simply this; in the Psalms you often wonder, and in the prophets you may wonder, from time to time, is this text talking about an earthly ruler? Is this a promise to a normal Davidic king? Or is it a promise of the Messiah?

One way we can tell is are things promised to the person in the text that go well beyond what God ever promised David?

This kingdom for this individual is forever. That was part of the Davidic promise, but he is going to have more territory than God ever promised to David. He is going to have more victories than God ever promised to David and more than he ever promised to any other king. So remember, there is no end to the increase of his government or of peace. And he is going to be Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

In the midst of the 8th century, historical context in which Israel and Judah were constantly faced with the Assyrians and if not with them, one of their minions. And if not with them, somebody who wanted to recruit them for a war against the Assyrians, war was a daily fact of life. Threats were a daily fact of life, and so they wanted someone to give them peace, and not only that, to somebody like Isaiah, he looks at Ahab and he knows this is not the Messiah. He longed for someone on the Davidic throne who will set things right.

So the promise is that in the future, such a person will come. So if, as I think is true, and Matthew thinks Isaiah 7 is a Messianic text, you need a virgin-born person for whom his birth will be “God With Us.” You need someone who will be a Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, Son of David, no end to his kingdom. This is what you need so far, and you need to be able to discern which ones will be true of the Messiah on earth and in the eschaton, in the end of time.

Or should we make that distinction? This was the dividing point between the Christians and a lot of Jewish interpreters of the 1st century. The Christians said some of this was for the time of the Messiah and some for the end of time. Others said no, it’s all the same thing, so that when the Messiah comes, all of these things must be fulfilled when he comes, because the Christian’s answer to the legitimate question: well, when are these things going to happen? Was “Later; the end of time.” And those who did not agree with that would have said that’s very convenient, but it doesn’t fit the portrait. I would disagree with those folks, but…

Just so you’ll know that if you’ve ever heard it said that well, you know, the 1st century Jews, they wanted somebody to relieve their burdens, somebody to set them free. Just remember those issues were considerable; they were real issues, but that the question was not so much one of what the Davidic king would do, but when.

When. “How long?” becomes the question again, and we will see more of that as we develop the promise in Isaiah, in particular, but you’ll see in chapter 11:1-10, similar sentiments as this in chapter 9. Start there, but also develop servant theology. 

Isaiah has the boldest to say: The coming king is also a suffering servant, and that just sounds self-contradictory to the average mind, doesn’t it? A ruler won’t suffer, at least not in the Ancient Near Eastern context.