Criswell Theological Review 6.2 (1993) 223-235
[Copyright © 1993 by
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
'ALMAH PROPHECY IN THE
CONTEXT OF ISAIAH 7-12
JOHN N. OSWALT
Asbury Theological Seminary
Isaiah
studies
these days. Does biblical prophecy contain within itself the
idea of
prediction of the distant future? For much of the Church's his-
tory this has been taken as a given. Accurate
prediction was the sign of
inspiration.1 Generally speaking, this view prevailed until the middle
of the
last century, when prophecy began to be seen primarily as con-
frontation with the social and religious status quo.
The name of Julius
Wellhausen is
especially associated with this new view. In the middle
years of
this century there was some swinging back of the pendulum
so that
as recently as 1987 J. E A. Sawyer could say that the belief
in the
Bible that the prophets could accurately predict the future
[whether they actually did or not!] was
an established fact.2 Yet, a year
before
Sawyer's book appeared another book was published which--
if I
judge the spirit of the times correctly--more accurately expresses
present
directions. This is J. Barton's The Oracles of God in which he
argues at
length that the biblical understanding of the prophets as
predictors of
the future is actually an imposition of a post-exilic and
intertestamental understanding upon the earlier documents.
For Bar-
ton, Wellhausen's understanding of the nature of prophecy is
correct.
1 See, for instance, the
arguments of J. Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament
(New York: 1914) 455-60.
2 J. F: A Sawyer, Prophecy
and the Prophets of the Old Testament (
224 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
It is very difficult to counter arguments like Barton's because
whenever one
refers to evidence from the text, the chances are that
the
evidence will be disallowed as reflecting a late stage of the tradi-
tion. Nevertheless, it must still be pointed
out that it is God's capacity
to
predict the future through the prophets which forms the backbone
of
Isaiah's lawsuit against the gods found in Isaiah 40-48. Over and
over God
through the prophet challenges the gods to bring forward
evidence to
show that just once they have done what is characteristic
of Him:
specifically predicted not merely the events, but the pattern
of
events which have subsequently occurred as predicted.3 B. Duhm,
in his
well-known commentary, says that only one who was quite un-
familiar with
pagan religion could make such an overblown state-
ment. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge
of Babylonian
religion
would surely know that the gods regularly predicted the
future.4 But the fact is, Isaiah's statements are neither naive nor over-
blown. As
C. Westennann points out, we look in vain in the non-
biblical
literatures for anything approximating the duration and
specificity of
the prophecies of the exile, for instance.5 In fact, the pa-
gan oracles were noteworthy for their
ambiguity. Most of the time
they
could be taken in several ways. Thus, whatever happened, it
could be
argued that the oracle was correct.6
But even if we recognize this characteristic ambiguity, if Isaiah
were
merely saying that the gods had never predicted the outcome of
some
event correctly, Westermann's argument would be open
to ques-
tion. Anyone familiar in any way with the
ancient world could have
surely
pointed to some case of that happening. What Isaiah is clearly
talking
about has to do with what Westermann saw. Isaiah is
talking
about the
prediction of a pattern of specific events shaping the course
of
history out into the far-distant future. It is this which the gods
could not
even begin to duplicate, as the inspired prophet well
knew.7,8
3 Cf. Isa 41:21-24; 43:8-10; 44:6-8; 45:21; 46:8-10; 48:5,14-16.
4 Das
Buch Jesaia (
5 C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: a Commentary (
G. E.
Wright, The Book of Isaiah (
6 Two
well-known examples are the oracle to Croesus and the one regarding the
Persian threat to the city of
ing lost to refer to the Persians, and
therefore inferred that he would triumph. After he
lost the
battle, it was declared that the empire being referred to was Croesus'.
Similarly,
when the
oracle declared that the Athenians would be saved by "the wooden wall; it
was
assumed that the reference was to the walls around the city. Later, when the
Greek
fleet had
removed the threat of attack by destroying the Persian fleet, it was declared
that
"the wooden wall" must have referred to the fleet. See Botsford and Robinson's
Hellenistic History, rev. D. Kagan (New York: 1969) 102,
147.
John N. Oswalt: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE '
I would like to argue that Isa
terns and,
as such, supplies evidence for exactly the kind of thing
Isaiah, and
orthodox Christianity, have insisted proves both the
unique
transcendence of God and the inspiration of Scripture.9 This
is not
a matter of mere academic interest because of what the New
Testament
does with that prediction. If the event is nothing more
than the
insightful reading of the signs of the times coupled with
religious
exhortation, which Matthew has ingeniously appropriated
to
support his convictions concerning the tremendous importance of
Jesus
Christ, then a very great deal is at stake.
Historically, those who have espoused positions like that just de-
scribed have
been divided into two camps: believers and unbelievers.
The
unbelievers (like A Comte and, more recently, J. Hicks10), have
simply seen
the church's position as an exercise in mass delusion. The
believers
(like G. A. Smith 11) have argued that while the original intent
had
nothing to do with the NT, the NT writers were providentially
7
Thus, Isaiah's use of the terms "former things" (41:22; 43:9; 44:7,
etc.) is signifi-
cant. B.
Childs believes this is "II Isaiah" speaking of "I
Isaiah's" predictions, as in 38:6
and
39:5-7 (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture [Philadelphia:
1979] 329-30).
More
plausibly, R. E. Clements ("The Unity of the Book of Isaiah," Interpretation
36
[1982] 117-29)
and C. Stuhlmueller (" 'First and Last' and
'Yahweh-Creator' in Dt.-Is.,"
CBQ 29 [1967] 495-511) believe it refers to
the Exodus events (the importance of the
Exodus
events as a paradigm for understanding the return from Exile in Isaiah 40-55 is
widely
recognized). But I believe even this is too limited; I am confident that all of
God's
promises from
Abraham through Moses and David to Hosea are in the prophet's mind.
How can
such
promises and preserved it against all the odds by wondrously fulfilling those
promises
while giving even greater ones could either forget them or could be just one
more of
the gods (40:27; 43:11-12)?!
8 This
insight has bearing upon the significance of the Cyrus prophecy for our un-
derstanding of the authorship of the book of Isaiah.
Surely the centerpiece for Isaiah's
claims for
the uniqueness of the Lord is the Cyrus prophecy. "Have the gods ever made
this kind
of prediction? Of course not!" If indeed the
prediction was penned 125 years
before
Cyrus was born, then the claim was absolutely correct. On the other hand, if,
as
those who
support multiple authorship claim, the "prediction" of Cyrus' victory
was
only made
after Cyrus had begun his conquests, there is, in fact, nothing unique about
Isaiah's predictions, and his arguments are indeed dependent upon
misuse of logic. For
the
claim that Isaiah's predictions were only made after the emergence of Cyrus,
see
C. R North, The Second Isaiah (
9 Two
examples of OT theologies which see the promise element as the organiz-
ing principle in OT thought are G. von Rad's Old Testament Theology (2 vols.
1962), and W Kaiser's Toward an Old Testament Theology
(Grand Rapids: 1978). The
former sees
promise/fulfillment as the general scheme which shapes the emerging the-
ology. The latter more correctly, in my view,
sees the specific promises of the OT, and
their
outworking, as expressing the plan of God for the saving of the race.
10 The
Myth of God Incarnate (
11 The
Book of Isaiah (2 vols., The Expositor's Bible,
226 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
guided in
their discovery of links between the OT and NT. The early
Fundamentalists
were surely right in their insistence that neither of
these
positions did justice to the Biblical claims.12
This is not the place to enter into a defence
of the orthodox posi-
tion on prophecy and fulfillment. But it is
the place to register a note
of
concern. Recently the "believers" position which I have described
above
seems to have begun to gain currency among the descendants of
the
Fundamentalists, the Evangelicals. In various ways it is being said
that
imaginative reflection upon the inspired texts in which connec-
tions to ones own time are found, although
those connections were not
originally
intended, is consistent with a high view of inspiration.13
Thus, it has
been argued that both propositions are true: Isa 7:14
bears no
reference to the heaven-sent Messiah; Matt
rantly inspired when it says that the virgin
birth of Christ was "to
fulfill what
the Lord had spoken by the prophet."14 The only way such
a
logical contradiction can be maintained is to say that the NT writers
did not
mean by "fulfill" what the English word normally means.
Frankly,
this looks like sleight-of-hand and does not give confidence in
the
argument. One must ask why a more correct translation of pleiro-
mai has never come into use if that is the
case. No, the New Testament
writer
believes, and wishes his readers to believe, that Isaiah pre-
dicted the virgin birth of the Messiah and that
that prediction was
completed,
fulfilled, in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The choice
before us
is either to accept or reject that claim. The Fundamentalists
were
correct in insisting that there is no middle way.15
But is it possible to accept Matthew's claim? Even if we grant
that such
long-distance prediction is possible under divine inspira-
tion, is there genuine reason to believe that
it took place? Does not a
careful
historical-critical investigation of the text in the light of nor-
12 See
the discussion of J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth
of Christ (
287-94, a classic treatment of the passage.
13 This
understanding has gained impetus through the study of the kind of exege-
sis done
at
known in
one form as Pesher, and in another as Midrash, was engaged in is clear. What
is not
clear is whether it was the only kind of exegesis used, and more to the point,
why
the
literary links between it and the NT writings are so few. Barton's work (op.
cit.) re-
lies
heavily upon the assertion that this was the method of NT exegesis.
14 A
recent statement of such a position is that of J. Walton, "What's in a
Name?"
JETS 30:3
(1987) 289-306. His
arguments are used as a backdrop for my own below.
15
Walton's attempt to solve the problem with reference to the OT use of names
falls
far
short. He argues that children are given names in the expectation that those
names
will
somehow become significant, but without any assurance of what that significance
will
be. He
sees this as analogous to OT prophecy. First of all, this does not apply to Isa 7:14
as he
sees it, since he has already deprived that passage of any larger predictive signifi-
cance. But beyond that, this model of
open-ended, and amorphous, possibilities does not
correspond to
what the prophets claimed for themselves. See the arguments above.
John N. Oswalt: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE '
mal
Biblical usages suggest that the passage was only intended for
Ahaz' time? Certainly some weighty arguments can be
mounted in de-
fense of such a position. Especially strong is
the evidence from within
the text
itself that the prediction was to be fulfilled, in one sense at
least,
within Ahaz' own lifetime. But does that realization
demand
that a
later, fuller reference be given up? I think not. When the argu-
ments for limiting the reference are examined,
significant weaknesses
can be
found.16 But of greatest significance, in my opinion, is the evi-
dence of the literary context, and it is to
that which we now turn.
Although most recent commentators do not
regard chaps. 7-12
to
be a
literary unity, there are good reasons to consider the chapters as a
unity of
thought. First of all, they show a very clear demarcation from
what
follows (chap. 13ff.), and a reasonably clear demarcation from
what
precedes (chap. 6).17 Furthermore, when the ideas are considered,
there
seems to be a clear progression of thought extending from Isaiah's
opening
challenge to Ahaz to trust God (7:9) to the closing
hymn of the
redeemed
extolling God's trustworthiness (12:1-6). That progression
moves
through several stages: terror at the Syro-Ephramite threat
16 The
article by Walton cited above lists a number of these arguments. In the in-
terests of completeness those which are not
responded to below will be responded to in
brief form
here. 1) The author asserts that "shall conceive and bear a son" is
incorrect
since harah, "conceive" is an adjective followed
by a ptcp, which combination cannot
have a
future connotation. He cites the comparable phrases in Gen 16:10 and Judg 13:3,
asserting that
there also the word is an adjective and that only the converted perfects in
those
contexts give the future meaning. In fact, the forms are not converted
perfects,
but also
participles (GKC §94f.). Thus, those references, which are clearly future by
con-
text, do
not prove his contention, but precisely disprove it. The future rendering is
en-
tirely appropriate. 2) He asserts that 'ot, "sign," does not connote anything
miraculous.
He makes this assertion
on the basis of three passages, 1 Sam 2:34; Jer
44:29-30; 2 Kgs
19:29. But
this overlooks two important aspects: the general usage of the word and its
specific
context in Isaiah 7. In general, the word is connected with "wonders"
in the
recitals of
the Exodus. The Exodus signs were surely miraculous in nature. This is
brought
closer home by the miraculous sign of the shadow in Isa
38:7-8. But most im-
portant of all is the passage itself in which Ahaz is directly encouraged to ask for a
miraculous sign
as high as heaven or as deep as Sheol. Thus there is
every reason
to
believe that the sign which God eventually gave was miraculous. The
"fulfillment"
which
Walton suggests breathes none of the air of mystery and wonder which is found
in the
passage itself.
17
The lack of agreement among commentators as to whether chap. 6 should be in-
cluded with chaps. 1-5 or 7-12 is an indication
of the chapter's transitional function: in
my
view. Looked at from the perspective of chaps. 1-5,
chap. 6 provides a clear solution
to the
problem posed in those chapters: how can proud, perverse, rebellious.
31; 2:6-4:1;
5:1-30) become clean and holy (4:2-6), the one to whom the nations come to
learn the
law of God (2:1-5)? The answer is that the nation of unclean lips can have an
experience of
God analogous to that of the man of unclean lips. But when chap. 6 is
looked at
from the perspective of chaps. 7-12, there are many ways in which it functions
as an
introduction to those chapters. Like them, it has a firm historical rootage; it provides
a
clear explanation for the blind and stubborn refusal of the promises of God
which
228 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
(7:1-6); refusal to accept God's word. of promise
(7:7-16); the forecast
of
destruction by
people of
God (8:9-9:1); the promise of the child deliverer (9:2-7);
explanation of
the reason for
but
and, as
such, accountable to Him who wields it (10:5-34); (since
destruction is
not the result of
ally
responsible, trustworthy
complete nor
final [
sianic kingdom (11:1-16); the hymn of redemption
(12:1-6; cf. Exod
15:1-18). Thus,
there is a clear thread of continuity which proceeds
from the
opening announcement of terror (7:2) to the final pronounce-
ment of fearlessness (12:2), with each
successive topic growing out of
the
preceding one.
This sense of continuity is enhanced by the recurring treatment of
certain
themes. Some of these are: the house of David (7:2, 13; 9:7; 11:1,
10);
children as signs of threat and promise (7:3, 14; 8:3, 18; 9:6; 11:6,
8);
in his
will to deliver (7:7-9; 8:9-10; 9:1-7;
12:1-6). All
of these reasons argue strongly that, despite a diversity of
literary
forms (poetry, prose, threats, oracles of salvation, etc.18) these
materials have
been put in this particular sequence because they are
intended to
be understood in context with one another.19
This understanding of the contextual unity
of chaps. 7-12 is
significant for
the interpretation of
signalled to us that he understands this passage,
as well as all the rest
of the
materials in the unit, as a part of that larger picture. Thus, to
read this
statement merely from within its immediate context, which
is vv
10-17, would be like interpreting a musical phrase in a sym-
phony in
isolation, without considering the movement in which it
characterize the response in those chapters; it predicts the destruction which
will result
from that
refusal; it sets the stage, with its final glimmer of hope, for the Messianic
promises
which conclude the unit. Thus, any simplistic inclusion or exclusion with
from
either 1-5 or 7-12 is to be avoided. Rather, both segments must be interpreted
in
the
light of that pivotal chapter.
18 For
a highly detailed discussion of the possible literary forms involved, see
O. Kaiser, Isaiah
1-12, a Commentary (
that
someone may yet analyze these forms in still more detail, it is hard to imagine
that
anything but
very diminished returns can come from it. Kaiser already seems to have
gone far
in that direction.
19 P. Ackroyd ("Isaiah 1-12, Presentation of a
Prophet," VTS 29 [1978] 16-48) has
argued that
chaps. 1-5 should be included in the unit as well. Although he makes a good
case, the
argument that chaps. 1-5 have a less restricted usage than this seems stronger.
John N. Oswalt: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE '
occurs, let
alone the larger symphonic structure. This is not to say that
the
larger context provides a warrant for reading a passage in a way
which does
violence to its immediate context, but it does say that exe-
gesis which analyzes the grammar and syntax of
a sentence, or even a
paragraph, in
minute detail, without paying attention to the shaping
influence of
the larger context, is not complete exegesis.
What is the larger message of which Isa 7:14