by The Great Christ Comet- Revealing the True Star of Bethlehem (retail) (epub)
That the drama unfolding in 733 BC was not the actual, full fulfillment of Isaiah’s oracle was clear simply by virtue of the nature of the actors playing the key roles—Isaiah’s wife, particularly if she was already a mother, seems to have lacked the qualifications to be a bona fide almah, and Isaiah’s second son was certainly not divine (he was not, in truth, “God with us” [or “Mighty God”])—and by virtue of the participation of Isaiah in the drama, impregnating his wife.
However, the outworking of the “sign” in Isaiah’s day was not devoid of impressive elements, because Isaiah’s wife did conceive, did give birth to a boy, and did, evidently without Isaiah’s personal intervention, prophetically name him Immanuel, all in accord with the prophetic word.
Maher-shalal-hash-baz was a “sign” pointing forward to the true son of the virgin, the divine Messiah. As Isaiah framed it, Maher-shalal-hash-baz’s very existence was a rebuke to the Davidic dynasty—God would fulfill his promises to David not through the seed of Ahaz or one of his dynastic successors, but rather through an adopted son of David born of a virginal conception. After all, Yahweh’s plan was to unite his own house with that of David (2 Samuel 7), causing a virgin girl to become pregnant by nonsexual means.
That the second son of Isaiah was a dramatic type, pointing forward to the Messiah, is clear in 8:8–10. In 8:5–8 Isaiah prophesied concerning the near future but in verse 8 he suddenly spoke of the land as belonging to Immanuel. This makes it clear that Immanuel there was not Maher-shalal-hash-baz but the Messiah whom he represented. This conclusion is supported by the fact that verses 9–10 go on to present an eschatological word of judgment to the nations that scheme against Israel-Judah, “for God is with us.” This final element intimates that Immanuel in the person of the Messiah would rescue his people from the international conspiracy at the end of the age. The allusion to the very ancient Davidic Psalm 2 is forceful—that psalm, widely regarded as a coronation psalm, warned a conspiracy of nations not to rebel against the Messiah but to submit to him in advance of his coming in wrath.
The sign had significance for Isaiah’s own day too, of course. Positively, it demonstrated that God would fulfill his promise to neutralize Ahaz’s enemies Syria and Israel (Isa. 7:15–16; 8:3–4). Negatively, since it was none other than God who was Judah’s covenant partner, Ahaz’s religious treachery could not go unpunished (7:17–25). The sign showed that Yahweh was turning away his favor from the Davidic dynasty that had ruled an independent Judah for 200 years. The dynasty of David, associated with Ahaz, had been exposed by Isaiah as unworthy. Judah would now lose its independence and become a vassal state, and embark on an inevitable path toward destruction and deportation.
The messianic drama acted out by Isaiah’s wife and second son was a fitting sign both positively and negatively. Because the kings of Syria and Israel had shown contempt for the Davidic covenant, a sign that highlighted the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise to unite his house with David’s was appropriate. In addition, because Ahaz had violated the Davidic covenant, a sign that emphasized that the future of the Davidic covenant lay with a virgin-born Messiah rather than the reigning Davidic dynasty had punch. To what extent the message conveyed by the sign was understood by Ahaz, however, is unclear—it is doubtful that he took much notice of Isaiah’s word. Indeed 2 Chronicles 28:22–23 seems to imply that Ahaz by this time had started worshiping the gods of Syria in a desperate bid to secure their favor against his enemy, Rezin king of Syria.42
Isaiah 7:14 and the Birth of Jesus
How was Isaiah 7:14 interpreted in the period running up to the birth of Jesus? Regrettably, we lack Jewish texts from the pre-Christian period that comment on Isaiah 7:14’s meaning. One tentative indication that the oracle may sometimes have been interpreted within Second Temple Judaism as referring to the Messiah may be the Septuagint’s rendering of almah with parthenos. Usually parthenos implies sexual chastity. If the Septuagint (LXX) translator was using it in this sense, then he may have interpreted almah in the context of Isaiah 7:14 to imply virginity and therefore may have believed that the oracle revealed that the Messiah would be born by supernatural, nonsexual agency.43
Certainly, early Christians regarded Isaiah 7:14 as predicting Jesus’s birth to a virgin. In no place is this clearer than in Matthew 1:18–25, where Matthew explicitly quotes Isaiah’s oracle: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin [parthenos] shall be with child [in gastri hexei] and shall give birth to a son [texetai huion], and they shall call him Immanuel’ (which means, ‘God with us’)” (vv. 22–23).44 The use of parthenos here probably indicates that Matthew was convinced that Isaiah was predicting that the Messiah would be conceived nonsexually in the body of a virgin.
Matthew 1:18’s “she was found to be with child [en gastri echousa]” echoes LXX Isaiah 7:14: “The virgin shall be with child [en gastri hexei],” and Matthew 1:21’s “She will bear a son [texetai huion]” and verse 25’s “she [gave] birth to a son [eteken ton huion]” are clearly drawn from LXX Isaiah 7:14’s “[the virgin] will bear a son [texetai huion].” Likewise, “he called his name [ekalesen to onoma autou]” in Matthew 1:25 echoes the wording of LXX Isaiah 7:14’s “she will call his name [kaleseis to onoma autou].” It is evident that Matthew is inviting his readers to interpret the events relating to Jesus’s nativity with reference to Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the pregnancy and childbirth of “the virgin.”
It should also be noted that when, at the very end of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus declares, “I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20), he is picking up on Isaiah 7:14, claiming that he himself is the prophesied Immanuel (“God with us”).45 The fact that Isaiah 7:14 is so prominent in the first and last main parts of the Gospel, bracketing the whole, suggests that the theme of Jesus as the presence of God with humans was very important to Matthew.46
Luke 1:27 also calls Mary a “virgin” (parthenos), and verse 31 records Gabriel as saying that she would conceive “in [her] womb [en gastri]” and would “bear a son [texē huion]” and indeed would “call his name [kaleseis to onoma autou] Jesus.” The allusion to Isaiah 7:14 is undeniable.47 This strongly suggests that Luke, like Matthew, believed that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in connection with the events of Jesus’s nativity.
Moreover, it is striking that when, according to Luke’s Gospel, Simeon met Joseph, Mary, and Jesus in the Jerusalem temple on the 40th day after the birth, he declared, “Behold, this child is appointed” to be “a sign that is opposed” (Luke 2:34). This statement strongly alludes to Isaiah’s word to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:14: “The Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” That Maher-shalal-hash-baz was a “sign” is reiterated in 8:18, where Isaiah refers to himself and his children as “signs and portents.” That Jesus as a newborn infant was declared to be “a sign” closely identified him with this son of Isaiah. Since, according to Luke, Simeon was speaking just 5½ weeks after the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, the allusion was particularly powerful. It should be observed that this oracle about Jesus being a sign that would be opposed and would cause many to fall is directed by Simeon exclusively “to Mary his mother” (Luke 2:34a). Luke is probably implying that Simeon perceived that Mary was the virgin about whom Isaiah had been prophesying and whose part Isaiah’s wife had played back in 733 BC. In other words, it seems likely that Simeon is being portrayed as conscious that both parties ultimately in view in Isaiah 7:14—the Messiah and his virgin mother—were standing before him at that moment.
Furthermore, according to Luke 2, the angel who announced the birth of Jesus during the night to the shepherds gave them “the sign” [to sēmeion]: “You will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger” (v. 12). The reference to “the sign” arguably recalls Isaiah 7:14’s “sign.” The fact that the angel was proclaiming the birth of “a baby,” indeed of the Messiah, would seem to confir
m this. Moreover, the angel’s phrase “unto you is born this day . . . a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” in Luke 2:11 alludes to Isaiah 9:6–7’s great prophecy anticipating the Messiah’s birth (“to us a child is born, to us a son is given”), which was inextricably linked to the “great light” that Isaiah proclaimed would shine in the darkness (Isa. 9:2).48 What the angel said was therefore strongly influenced by Isaiah’s prophecies, particularly Isaiah 7:1–9:7.
Like Matthew, therefore, Luke maintains that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in connection with the birth of Jesus to Mary.
This Christian approach to Isaiah 7:14 continued into the post–New Testament period. For example, Justin Martyr famously disputed with Trypho the Jew concerning the meaning of this oracle and in particular the identity of Immanuel:
And hear again how Isaiah in express words foretold that He should be born of a virgin; for he spoke thus: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a Son, and they shall say for his name, “God with us.” . . . This, then, “Behold a virgin shall conceive,” signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive.49
In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin strongly affirmed that Jesus “was born of a virgin, and that His birth of a virgin had been predicted by Isaiah.”50
Shortly thereafter, he wrote to Trypho, his Jewish interlocutor:
But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive,” but, “Behold the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,” and [since] you explain the prophecy as if [it referred] to Hezekiah, who was your king, I shall endeavor to discuss shortly this point in opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is acknowledged by us as Christ.51
So it is clear that the early Christians strongly believed that Isaiah 7:14 was an oracle concerning the birth of the Messiah and indeed that it had predicted a virginal conception.
Isaiah 7:14 as the Key to Understanding the Celestial Drama in Virgo
When the Magi watched the celestial Virgin, Virgo, emerge in the eastern sky pregnant and then saw her give birth to her cometary baby, no Biblical text would have seemed more obviously pertinent than Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son. . . .” Before their eyes, Virgo seemed to be acting out in the celestial realm the very drama envisioned by Isaiah. The fact that Isaiah declared that the baby would be divine in nature (“Immanuel” and “Mighty God”) would have seemed very compatible with the celestial apparition. This Isaiah connection is strengthened by the fact that the Magi were inspired to bring their gifts of gold and frankincense by Isaiah 60:4–6, a passage with close links to Isaiah 7–9.
Revelation 12:1–5, which discloses the celestial wonder that was observed by the Magi unfolding in the eastern sky, strongly hints that Isaiah 7:14 was being fulfilled in heaven. It is important to take due note of the indications of Revelation 12:1–2’s dependence on Isaiah’s oracle.52 The word sēmeion (“sign”) in Revelation 12:1 is used in LXX Isaiah 7:14 of the sign consisting of the virgin being with child and giving birth. Furthermore, in both texts she is “with child” (harah in the Hebrew text; en gastri hexei in the Septuagint of Isa. 7:14; en gastri echousa in Rev. 12:2) and goes on to “give birth to a son” (weyoledet ben in the Hebrew; texetai [from the verb tiktō] huion in the Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14; eteken [from the verb tiktō] huion in Rev. 12:5). In portraying the heavenly scene in terms of Isaiah 7:14, John is, I would suggest, reflecting how the early Christians, and indeed the Magi, interpreted the cometary nativity drama that coincided with Jesus’s birth.
This astronomical approach to the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 raises an interesting and important question: Was Isaiah’s Immanuel oracle being interpreted in strictly terrestrial terms but applied to the heavenly phenomenon that attended Jesus’s birth, or was the Immanuel oracle believed to have prophesied the celestial wonder that occurred in Virgo, low on the eastern horizon, in September and October, 6 BC?53 In other words, did those who interpreted what the comet did in Virgo in terms of Isaiah 7:14 believe that “the virgin” who conceived and gave birth to the child was exclusively terrestrial, or did they believe that she was simultaneously celestial and terrestrial?
It must be conceded that there are a number of elements within Isaiah 7–12 that might have been regarded as favoring a celestial aspect to 7:14: the reference to a “sign . . . in the height above”54 (v. 11); the prophecy of a “great light” in 9:2; the conceivable allusion to Virgo’s “branch” (11:1); the fact that Virgo may have been present at the meeting between Isaiah and Ahaz (in December/January, 734/733 BC) (7:10–25); and that the sign was a punishment for Ahaz, who had strong pagan tendencies (2 Chron. 28:1–4, 22–25) and probably worshiped astral deities (2 Kings 20:8–11 [the sundial of Ahaz]; 23:5 [priests of astral cults], 11–12 [horses and chariots dedicated to the Sun, and rooftop altars dedicated to the worship of astral deities]). These considerations might conceivably have prompted some Jews in Babylon to interpret the celestial wonder unfolding in the eastern sky in 6 BC as the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. The Babylonian Magi would have known that the zodiacal constellations, which originated in Babylon, were being studied in the eighth century BC, when Isaiah issued his oracle.55 Moreover, they would have been very well aware that the conceptualization of the sixth zodiacal constellation (or at least part of it) as a young virgin was very ancient.56
However, it is much more natural to interpret Isaiah 7:14 in strictly terrestrial terms, with the “virgin” being Isaiah’s wife and the Messiah’s mother, and with the child being Maher-shalal-hash-baz and the Messiah. Indeed a celestial interpretation of 7:14 would have been difficult to sustain.
First and foremost, a constellation figure could not, of course, have named the terrestrial baby “Immanuel.” Virgo could only do that through her terrestrial counterpart, the earthly virgin mother. However, introducing such a shift of referent would rupture the logical flow of 7:14. The text is more naturally interpreted as speaking exclusively of a terrestrial “virgin.” Moreover, the name Immanuel (“God with us”) reflects a particularly human and Judahite perspective rather than a celestial one.
Second, in light of the fact that Ahaz rejected a celestial sign in 7:11, it is unlikely that Yahweh granted him one. The logic of verses 11–14, particularly the “therefore” in verse 14, which refers back to verse 13, indicates that Yahweh withdrew his offer and issued the House of David a “sign” quite unlike the options he had just offered. In verse 11 God had offered to do a “sign” that would satisfy Ahaz’s need for reassurance concerning Isaiah’s oracle, calling on him to trust and not capitulate to his fear. However, in verse 14 the “sign” is not tailored to encourage Ahaz in faith but rather to confirm Isaiah’s word in the face of Ahaz’s unbelief and rebellion and also to express Yahweh’s disfavor concerning the Davidic dynasty. Therefore it would actually be surprising if the “sign” of verse 14 was either “deep as Sheol” or “in the height above.”
We suggest therefore that Revelation 12:1–5 does not reflect a celestial interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 but rather is simply claiming that the fulfillment of the Immanuel oracle on the earth was attended by a dramatization of it in the heavens. In the celestial drama, Virgo played the part of the virgin and the cometary coma played the part of Immanuel.
However, this does not mean that Isaiah did not anticipate the occurrence of a great comet to mark the fulfillment of the Immanuel oracle. He did anticipate this, and this can be seen in Isaiah 9:2. To demonstrate this, we must turn our focus to the latter half of Isaiah 7:1–9:7, namely 8:11–9:7.
Isaiah 8:11–9:7: The Great Light Shining in the Darkness
Any remaining thought that Isaiah was predicting that a celestial sign would occur in Ahaz’s day is ruled out by 8:11–22.57 There the
prophet declared that the people of Judah would long for some divine revelation during the Assyrian oppression that was about to descend on the kingdom. But they would be granted only the revelations given in oral and written form through Isaiah and the “signs and portents” consisting of the prophet himself and his sons (vv. 16–20). At that time the people of Judah would “turn their faces upward” and “look to the earth” (vv. 21–22). As Wildberger highlights in his comments on 8:21–22, this language recalls Yahweh’s offer in 7:11 to do a sign “deep as Sheol or in the height above”:
One does not only utter curses, but also looks around for help: “He turns himself toward what is above and looks to the earth.” In 7:11, Isaiah offered the king a sign “deep within the underworld” or “high above in the heights.” Instead of Sheol, here he mentions the earth (but we must also remember that ’eretz can also designate the underworld), whereas in both passages lemā‘lāh (“toward what is above”) is used when speaking of the realm above. In this particular passage, one probably ought to take it to mean something like the following: One seeks in the heavens above and the earth below for some sign of a coming change in fortune. It is possible that this means careful observations which seek omens (flight of birds, movements of or constellations of stars, or something similar . . . ). However, no trustworthy sign is to be discovered, for there is nothing but oppression and darkness.58
Isaiah’s point is that there would be no celestial wonder in 733–727 BC. Indeed the people of Judah would be so frustrated that they had no revelation other than the prophetic word (8:16–20) and the “signs and portents” that were Isaiah and his sons (v. 18) that they would desperately look for some astronomical or (sub-)terrestrial sign of the kind Ahaz had rejected. There may well be an implication that they would do so with bitterness in their hearts against their king for spurning God’s offer, and against God himself for refusing to give that kind of “sign.” God would not give them the celestial sign, the light, for which they longed. No, he would only give them “distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish” and cast them into “thick darkness” (v. 22).59 This provides the context in which 9:1–2 must be understood.
