king to replace him. The subsequent warfare is known as the Cero-Ephraimite War, which lasted a couple years here, and the Davidic king at the time was Ahaz. Now Ahaz was one of Judah's wicked kings, following his father Jotham and his grandfather Uzziah, who are both considered to be faithful kings of Judah. He even sacrificed one of his sons in the fire, which would have been either to Molech or Hamosh. And the scriptures picture him in a spiritual alignment with the kings of Israel, or the northern kingdom, rather than with the kings of Judah, which is not a favorable picture, because all of Israel's kings were unfaithful. There was never a faithful king in the northern kingdom. There were some in the southern kingdom, including his father and grandfather, but none in the north. Ahaz was responsible for reintroducing pagan worship practices in Judah on a widespread basis. In 2 Kings 16, 1 to 4, in the 17th year of Pekah, the son of Ramaliah, Ahaz, the son of Jotham, king of Judah, became king. Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And he did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord his God, as his father David had done. And when this is said about a king in Judah, it's a very critical comment. But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, the northern kingdom, not the southern kingdom, and even made his son pass through the fire according to the abominations of the nations whom the Lord had driven out from before the sons of Israel. He sacrificed and burned incense on the high places and on the hills, and under every green tree. Now Isaiah 7.7.1 now introduces the second phase of the Saro-Ephraimite War. Now it came about in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Retzin, the king of Aram, and Pekah, the son of Ramaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not conquer it. So they're trying to get Judah to force them into this alliance, but the first time they tried, it failed. Now, one of the reasons that God allowed this war to take place was due to the sin of Ahaz for being a pagan, unfaithful king, and for leading the Israelites into paganism. And it resulted in a lot of damage done to Judah, even though Jerusalem was not conquered by Retzin and Pechad during that particular war. In 2 Chronicles 28, five to nine, talks about the damage done in this first battle. Wherefore, the Lord his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Aram, and they defeated him and carried away from him a great number of captives and brought them to Damascus. Now notice this was done at the permission of the Lord. as he was disciplining Judah by means of Aram and Israel. And he also delivered in the hand of the king of Israel who inflicted him with heavy casualties. For Pekah, the son of Remaliah, slew in Judah 120,000 in one day, all valiant men, because they had forsaken the Lord God of their fathers. and Zichri, a mighty man of Ephraim, through Maaseah, the king's son, and Azrikam, the ruler of the house, and Elkanah, the second to the king. The sons of Israel carried away captive of their brethren, 200,000 women, sons and daughters, and they took also a great deal of spoil from them and brought the spoil to Samaria. But a prophet of the Lord was there, whose name was Oded, and he went out to meet the army which came to Samaria and said to them, Behold, because the Lord, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, he has delivered them into your hand, and you have slain them in a rage which has reached even heaven. The prophet Oded told the men of Israel that even though they had been God's instrument of judgment on Judah, they themselves would incur God's judgment for taking their fellow Jews captive as slaves. Well, that particular time it shamed them and they took care of the Judean captives and released them then back into Judah. And you can look at 2 Chronicles 28, one to 15 for the more complete account there. So when this war began to take shape, Ahaz and the citizens of Judah were terribly afraid. And this fear was not unjustified. Ahaz had reason to fear because he would be dethroned, but even worse, and probably beyond the comprehension of the unfaithful king, the Davidic throne would have prematurely ceased to exist. apart from God's plan for the Davidic dynasty. So the people had reason to fear, because they knew the fate of conquered people in that time. And as we just read here in 2 Chronicles 28, that fate already befell some of them, even short of the total capitulation of Judah and Jerusalem. So they'd already come in and killed a lot of them and took a lot of them captive, even though they released them. That was unusual. And these people of Judah knew what the fate was of people when they got conquered. And the faithless evil Baal worship of Israel would have been imposed on Judah, who, while themselves unfaithful, at least at times in Judah, they had faithful kings that brought them back to Yahweh. Israel never had a faithful king over the course of the northern kingdom's entire existence. Isaiah 7.2, when it was reported to the house of David saying, the Arameans have camped in Ephraim, his heart and the hearts of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind. So this development really scared him and it should have. Now whatever happened after the first attack and the release of the prisoners of war, Aram decided to stay in Israel. And here called Ephraim, which is the primary tribe, is used to represent the whole nation. This situation caused a great deal of fear in Judah. They already knew they were not out of harm's way. concerning this military alliance between Israel and Aram. And this state of fear set up Isaiah's assignment from God to go to Ahaz and reveal to him the word of the Lord. In Isaiah 7, 3. Then the Lord said to Isaiah, go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son, Shaar Yashuv, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the fuller's field. Now this was obviously a divine appointment. Isaiah had no idea Ahaz was gonna be in that particular place at that time, but God knew and he sent the prophet to meet the king at that place when the king was going to be present. Now Isaiah was sent to console the frightened king with a message of reassurance and to provide him with direction for his response to the danger facing him. Whether or not he was going to listen was a separate issue. There's no agreement exactly where this pool was located, but it served as a laundry where the fullers laundered clothing. And the word fuller is kvas. It means to tread, the common method of laundering clothing to wash and to launder. It refers to cleaning with a cleansing agent. And this is probably the same place where the Assyrian Rabshakeh stood to challenge the Israelites in Jerusalem to surrender later on. And we'll read about that in Isaiah chapter 36 when we get there in three or four years. Ahaz was likely surveying the area for defensive purposes in preparation for the siege that he knew was coming. No city can hold out for long against a siege if there's no drinking water available to the people under siege, and that was the impetus for the later construction of Hezekiah's Tunnel, which is revealed in 2 Kings 20, and which If you go to Jerusalem, you have the opportunity to walk through that tunnel. The water's about yea deep, I guess. Or you can go through a little narrow passageway and avoid walking through the water. But you can go through Hezekiah's tunnel to this day. Now the Davidic covenant was also at stake here. It was not in God's timing for the Davidic dynasty to enter into hiatus at that time. Israel's kings were not of the house of David. Therefore, if and when they assumed the throne in Judah, the Davidic dynasty would have ended. It would end at some point in the future anyway, but it would happen at the end of Zedekiah's reign in 586 BC when Babylon conquered Judah and Jerusalem. Now the name of Isaiah's son, Shaar Yashuv, means a remnant shall return. And this name represents a warning as well as reassurance. The warning was that judgment was going to fall that include exile from the land. The reassurance was that a remnant of Jews would return to the land. And we talked about the remnant pretty extensively a few lessons ago. That didn't happen at that time. Judah was not conquered and Ahaz died as the king of Judah. So his exile didn't happen at this particular time. Now we know that there's always a faithful remnant of believing Jews. After the Babylonian captivity, a number of Jews returned to the land, but not all were the remnant because not all were believers who came back. So this prophecy represented by this child's name will not be completely fulfilled until the end of the tribulation and the beginning of the messianic kingdom. The Lord talked about it in the Olivet discourse, Matthew 24, 31, and he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together his elect from the four winds from one end of the sky to the other. And that will be the final gathering of the remnant into the land. Now, the concept of the remnant contained in this boy's name is a reminder of the remnant earlier identified in Isaiah 6.13, and that's where I spoke about this concept of the remnant. The church is not the remnant. Some people wanna say, well, God always has a remnant and they refer to the church. The remnant in the Bible only refers to the Jewish people. If you look up the word remnant in a concordance, it's only used twice in the New Testament, in Romans 9 and Romans 11, and both times it's referring to Jews, not to Gentiles or the church. Now through Isaiah, the Lord gave Ahaz four commands. These commands involved trusting in God for salvation, and this salvation is in the form of deliverance from harm, not necessarily in justification salvation, rather than trusting in an evil entity like Assyria for protection, Isaiah 7.4. And say to him, take care and be calm. Have no fear and do not be faint-hearted because of these two stubs of smoldering firebrands on account of the fierce anger of Resin and Aram, the son of Remaliah. Now, so the four commands are to take care, to be calm, to have no fear, and do not be fainthearted. So God was telling this king really to do what Israel was always supposed to do, and that was be unafraid and trust in their God. He was not to take matter into his own hands by making an alliance with a pagan nation. The problem was the Israelites as a nation never completely trusted in their God and nearly always placed their faith in something other than Yahweh. That started early in their history, and this king was going to prove to be no exception to their unfaithful, doubting hearts. There were individual exceptions to that lack of trust, of course, Moses, King David, and the prophets being examples of faithful, trusting servants of God. But as a nation, they placed their trust in other people and nations rather than in Yahweh. Moses addressed this all the way back in Deuteronomy chapter one, verses 29 to 33. Then I said to you, do not be shocked nor fear them. The Lord your God, he goes before you, will himself fight on your behalf, just as he did for you in Egypt before your eyes and in the wilderness where you saw how the Lord your God carried you, just as a man carries his son in all the way in which you have walked until you came to this place. But for all this, you did not trust the Lord your God. who goes before you on your way to seek out a place for you to encamp and fire by night and cloud by day to show you the way in which you should go. So even after they saw all of these miraculous things in Egypt, they still had a hard time trusting God and that carried on throughout their history. Now later in Isaiah, the prophet revealed that one day Israel as a nation would trust in the Lord, but that day will not come until the Lord establishes the messianic kingdom. A couple of verses in Isaiah where he talks about this is 12 to behold, God is my salvation. I will trust and not be afraid for the Lord. God is my strength and song, and he has become my salvation. And Isaiah 26, four trust in the Lord forever for in God, the Lord, we have an everlasting rock. And this word trust is, and it means to trust or to be confident. It refers to having strong confidence or reliance upon someone or something, but this is a concept Israel has never been able to fully embrace, but they will someday one day. In terms of the scripture in Crestian, Ahaz will fail to trust the Lord as well. Now, Isaiah counseled the king to trust in the Lord without making any rash or hasty decisions based on fear or pressure from his advisors and the frightened citizens of Judah. He could make better decisions if he remained calm. And if he trusted in God, his fear would subside and he would not lose heart before the battle even began. Now, part of the problem here was that the Israelites had forgotten and even rejected Yahweh in the scriptures. Ahaz was one of the particularly wicked kings of Judah, and he lacked the knowledge that would have bolstered his confidence in the face of his danger. He wanted to rely on himself and on his pagan gods. But knowledge, wisdom, and instruction originate in the fear of the Lord, and he has had no fear of the Lord. That's a problem. Ratzin and Pekah were sarcastically called smoldering firebrands, ashin-ud. meaning barely burning sticks that were about to burn out. Their strength was spent. There was nothing to fear from them. This metaphor represents pieces of wood that had once been on fire, but are now simply charred and smoldering pieces of wood, almost completely burned up. But from the human standpoint, we have to remember that those kings had just done a lot of damage to them the year before. So it's understandable that they're afraid, but they've got the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is counseling him here, not to be afraid. Now, these kings were exceedingly angry, described as fierce anger. because Judah refused to join their military alliance. And their intent was to remove Ahaz from the throne, install their own puppet king, and force the citizens of Judah into their armies. Now, by referring to Pekah, not by name, but as the son of Remaliah, Isaiah is showing him no respect, indicating that he was an insignificant king in the sight of God. Now the plan was for Aram and Ephraim to conquer Judah and install a puppet king who would be allied with them and do their bidding in Isaiah 7, 5 and 6. Because Aram with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah has planned an evil against you saying, let us go up against Judah and terrorize it and make for ourselves a breach in its walls and set up the son of Tabeo as king in the midst of it. So, planned evil is yeletzra'ah, and it means that these kings deliberately plotted to do something bad, evil, wicked, and no good to Judah and her kings. The words refer to an event resulting in calamity, producing a great loss and misfortune. They were intent on imposing their will on Judah and Jerusalem without regard to the devastating consequences to the people of Judah. The word terrorize here is kutz, and it means to tear apart, referring to attacking a place. Sorry, I'm not keeping up here. It means to tear apart, referring to attacking a place, which is then conceived of as tearing it apart. Most Bibles use the word terrorize or some variation that means the same thing, but the Lexham Bible translates this as to tear apart, which is the literal translation. The argument can be made that tearing a nation apart is terrorizing it, but I think there's a difference. But let me show you Isaiah 7, 6 in the Lexham Bible. First it says, let us go up against Judah and let us tear her apart. That's the most literal translation of what this word means. And that's important to us, because in English, to terrorize a nation is to create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress without necessarily conquering it, although that might be the end game. It relates to a series of seemingly random, yet connected to a group, violent attacks taking on various forms. But in this case, the desired result was to tear the nation apart so they could be quickly and easily conquered. So I'm thinking that the Lexham Bible translation here, let us terror apart, instead of terrorize, gives us, at least those of us who speak English, a better indication of what they're actually intending to do. They're going to decimate the place. Now, It struck me that given the fact that Aram and Ephraim wanted Judah to join them in a military alliance for protecting them from Assyria, we have to wonder how tearing Judah apart was going to advance the security concerns of those two nations. You go in and you destroy a place because you want them to join you to help you be protected from someplace else, and you decimate them so they can't help you anyway. What's the point? Why bother? I don't know. But that was the plan. And what that reminded me of when I was saying this was that, I don't know if this was true, it came out of Vietnam saying we had to destroy the village in order to save it. You know, kind of a non sequitur there. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Now, by referring to the prospect of Puppet King as a son of Tabeel, which is Tav-al in Hebrew, without mentioning his name is a sign of disrespect. This man's name and his origins and relationship with Aram and or Ephraim remain unknown. Those things are not revealed in the scriptures. But some extra biblical sources indicate that the Tabeel family was a prominent family in Gilead, which is in Judah. If that's true, then the Tavall family must have supported Judah joining this Aram-Israel alliance as protection from the encroachment of Assyria. In other words, this was a rich family in Judah who wanted to protect their interests, and they probably thought by joining with the northern kingdom and with Syria that they could be protected better than if they relied on God, apparently. Now through Isaiah, God responded to this plot and he made it clear to Ahaz that he had nothing to fear. In fact, Ephraim was destined for destruction. It wasn't that Ahaz from a strictly human viewpoint had nothing to fear because he did have reasonable cause for concern, but what he also had was the creator God of Israel who was not going to allow the nation to be destroyed at that time. But Ahaz didn't have the spiritual capabilities of relating to that. He thought he was smart enough to take care of himself. Isaiah seven, seven to nine. Thus says the Lord God, it shall not stand nor shall it come to pass for the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin. Now within another 65 years, Ephraim will be shattered. So it's no longer a people. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Amalia. If you will not believe, you surely shall not last. Now God is absolutely emphatic that it shall not come to pass. The Lord God, Adonai Yahweh, emphasizes the sovereignty and omnipotence of God, who alone controls the destiny of nations and world history, and who is entirely capable of stopping these smoking firebrands, and thereby preserving Judah, and Jerusalem. For the time being, Aram and Ephraim and their leaders would continue as they were without the annexation of Judah, although both would be conquered by Assyria in a few years. Now, when God said Ephraim would cease to exist in 65 years, he meant it. And here's a timeline that Buchs-Basen put together. that in 734, Isaiah met Ahaz, or Ahaz. In 732 BC, Damascus was captured and Retzin killed. In 722, Samaria was captured and many people taken into captivity by Assyria. And then in 669, Esau Haddan destroyed the northern kingdom Israel as a nation, took the 10 tribes into exile. He then resettled Israel with other people from various parts of the Assyrian empire, who became the people we know as Samaritans when they cohabitated with the few Jews that were left. Now this is precisely 65 years, but other sources claim the exact date of Israel's destruction is unknown. That may be, but I'm telling you it was 65 years. I don't care what the dates were, because God said it was gonna be 65 years. Or at least he said, said within another 65 years at least is how the scripture reads. The inspired text records 65 years was Shashim Vah Hamesh, literally 60 and five in their number system. And we have every reason to believe it's an accurate rendering of the prophecy, making boops, bargains, calculations correct. And Dr. Young also presented a plausible and corresponding timeline that confirms 65 years as well. Now, If Ahaz and the other leaders of Judah would only believe, they would last as a nation. God did bless them by preventing their destruction at the hands of Aram and Ephraim, and later by Assyria. But Ahaz, along with much of the leadership, was an unbeliever. And Judah would eventually then be destroyed, not by Assyria, But by Babylon, it's God's judgment on her unbelief, just as the Northern Kingdom was destroyed. And of course, at that time, that put the Davidic dynasty into hiatus. There's always a... Up until the time of Christ, there was always a man who could have been the Davidic king. There's always descendants still, but there wasn't anybody who was able to sit on the throne during that time. Now then Yahweh attempted to move Ahaz from a position of unbelief to one of belief in Isaiah 7, 10, and 11. Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz saying, ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God, make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven. The connection between Yahweh and the prophet is noteworthy. The Lord spoke to the king through the prophet, but the relationship between them is such, it can be said, that the Lord was speaking directly to the king. The prophet's words were God's words. Compare this to verse 13, which we'll get to later, where Isaiah is again speaking to Ahaz, but it's still with the revelation of God being spoken. So whether the text says, God said to the king or Isaiah said to the king, it's all God's word going to the king one way or the other. They're coming through the prophet. But God and this prophet are so much intertwined that you can say that God is speaking even when it's the prophet relaying what he wanted relayed to the king. Now, just in terms of application here, a little sideline, beware those who pridefully call themselves prophets, and I would also say apostles today. God has spoken through his word. He is speaking through his word today, and he's no longer speaking to people through intermediaries called prophets and apostles who have received a direct word from God. I should actually have written this a little better. I should have said who claim to receive a direct revelation from God. Those who claim to be receiving new revelation directly from God are deceiving people. As the word of God is taught to people by those who are gifted and trained to teach, God is speaking to people through the word of God. And today, some people call those who proclaim the word of God prophets in the sense that they're faithful truth tellers concerning the word of God, but teacher seems to me to be a better identifying term to use. Some people want to say, guys like Jeremy and me who stand up here and try to tell you exactly what the Bible said, that we're prophets because we're telling the truth of the word. I kind of don't like that. I would just prefer teacher to be the appropriate title if you want to give somebody a title, or pastor teacher in the case of our pastor's position. Now, the use of the word again in verse 10 suggests there's a possibility of a break between the revelation in verses one to nine and 10 to 16. May not be, but it sounds that way a little bit. Ahaz, the unbelieving king, was offered a sign by God, probably an attempt to bring him to faith. And this was a command because the word ask is in the imperative form. It was not a request. here in verse 11, ask a sign for yourself. Ask there is a command, not a request. He's not saying, you know, if you want to ask me for a sign and I'll do it. He's saying ask and I'm going to do it because I'm going to show you something, buddy. But that's not what happened. So God was gonna show this faithless king his power. Whatever the king asked, God was going to demonstrate to the king that he, God, had the power to do it. Signs are meant to authenticate the message and the messenger. Yahweh provided the message, Isaiah preached the message, and God was going to confirm it by means of a sign. And the sign would show the king that God would do whatever he said he would do. and that being because it was in his power to do it. Even this unbelieving, rebellious king would have had to acknowledge the power and the ability of God. But whether he accepted it or not, in terms of belief, is another issue. People can see signs, wonders, and miracles all they want to, and they still disbelieve. I mean, we see that a lot in the Gospels, do we not? People today that would say, well, if God had just shown me a miracle, I'd believe. No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't believe a bit. You'd still find another reason. Remember what the Jews did after all the signs, miracles, and wonders? They said, show us a sign. That's unbelief. So that's where we're at here. Even unbelieving people are going to remain. Some people will believe, obviously. That was the purpose. And many people came to faith, John chapter 20, so that you will know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. but it doesn't always work on the heart that is so rebellion and so stubborn that they don't want to be convinced no matter what. That's why blessed are those who believe by faith and not by sight. But the king's rebellious soul was stubborn, and he didn't want to be exposed to the power of God. He wanted to do things his way, which subsequent events would prove was the wrong way. He approached his leadership duties from a human perspective instead of from the perspective of the God of Israel. Now we expect leaders who are part of the cosmos world system to approach their leadership duties from the human, secular humanist standpoint. I mean, that's the world they're in. We shouldn't expect that from the people of God, the Israelites, the people that he created, that he set apart, that are not reckoned among the nations. They are apart from the nations of the world. We should expect that they would give God the respect that he deserves as they're the God who created them and brought them out of Egypt and planted them in their land and so forth to rely on him a little more than the average ruler in the world. As deep as Shoah or as high as heaven is a way of saying that anything Ahaz could possibly have asked for was not beyond the capabilities of the creator God of the universe to accomplish. Yahweh was and still is the God of Israel, of the Davidic kings, and of the unconditional covenants made with Israel, whether they accepted him or not. He was the God of the unbelieving Ahaz, whether he accepted the Lord or not. If Ahaz had requested a sign from God, it would have exhibited a sense of acknowledgement of the attributes of God, which he, as an unbeliever, did not acknowledge. He didn't want to acknowledge them, even when he's faced with having them shown to him right in his face. And God, knowing that, commanded Ahaz to ask for a sign, any sign, because nothing is too difficult for God to do. So Ahaz then rebelliously refused to ask God for a sign. Remember, ask was an imperative, it's a command. Verse 12. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord. The word test here is nasan, it means to test, to try, to prove. It has the sense of putting to the test in order to ascertain the nature of something, including imperfections, faults, or other qualities, good or bad. Now Ahaz, masquerading as a pious Israelite, refused to ask for a sign, saying he did not want to put the Lord to the test. But the king wanted to appear as a man of great faith when he actually had no faith. And remember, God wasn't asking, God was commanding, and the king was refusing. Ahaz was determined to make an alliance with Assyria for protection, and he didn't want God interfering in what he thought was his business. He thought he had all the answers and was therefore self-sufficient. He didn't realize his need. And isn't that still the truth today? People believing that they have all the answers, we're so smart, and we know everything, and we don't need God, and we don't need him telling us what to do. And it was, in fact, prohibited to put God to the test. And Israel had a history of doing that, if we go back to Deuteronomy. 616, you shall not put the Lord your God to the test as you tested him at Massah. So they have a little history of testing God, and they did it when they weren't supposed to. Now Ahaz is supposed to ask God to test him, and Ahaz refuses. So they've got everything backwards. But the problem for Ahaz in this situation was that while it was prohibited to test God on one's own authority, it was not prohibited to obey a command from God on his authority, which in this case was to specify a sign for God to perform in his sight. So in this particular instance, not to ask for a sign was disobedience. The king was not seriously concerned about the prohibition on testing God. He didn't want anything to do with God, and he used his refusal to test God as an excuse to go his own way. But because Ahaz refused to specify a sign, which I'm sure did not catch Yahweh by surprise, the Lord would give him a sign anyway. Isaiah 7, 13 to 15. Then he said, listen now, O 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? Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. Now the Lord resumed speaking through the prophet who challenged not just Ahaz for trying the patience of God, but he challenged the entire royal line of which Ahaz was only the current representative for trying He's challenging him for trying the patience of God. The whole line was guilty of trying the patience of God is what I'm trying to say. This was a reference to the entire Davidic dynasty, which had proven over the years to be unfaithful more often than it had been faithful. The words here are plural, referring to the Davidic dynasty in total and not simply to Ahaz. At that point in history, the Davidic throne was in jeopardy of being lost under the reign of Ahaz, but it was not God's intention that the line should end at that point in history. So the context here is dealing with a sign which is to the house of David and not to Ahaz alone. The sign was going to be a virgin birth, which was a reference to the Messiah who would be the culmination of the Davidic dynasty and therefore the preservation of King David's line in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. At some point, the Davidic line of Kings was going to end and only God was going to be able to restore it. Restoration would begin to take place with the birth of Emmanuel. So what we have here is, okay, who is this child? What would Ahaz understand about all this? That's the argument. Well, it must be Isaiah's wife having a child or something. Well, she wasn't a virgin, so that's a problem. But we're gonna see through some progressive revelation here in Isaiah in the next few chapters, that it's talking about the Messiah right here. And it's a sign not to Ahaz necessarily at that time, but to the house of David in the future. That's the sign. Did Ahaz, then people say, well, Ahaz couldn't have understood that. Probably not. Isaiah may not have understood it either. Remember in the New Testament, it clearly says at one point, and I didn't think to include it here, but it said that these prophets longed to look into some of these things. They didn't even understand what they were saying and predicting at times. So it's not unusual for us to say, well, Ahaz wouldn't have got this. Maybe not. But there's something that's gonna follow this that he is gonna get. But anyway, this prophecy here then is an amplification of the prophecy in Genesis 315, concerning the seed of the woman. It is only by means of the virgin birth that the seed of the woman can properly be understood. And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise you on the head and you shall bruise him on the heel. So we have this in very early form, we have this implication of a virgin birth that's gonna happen someday. But confirmation then that this prophecy was fulfilled in Mary and her son Jesus is found in Matthew. And this is extremely important in terms of understanding Isaiah's prophecy, Matthew 1, 22 and 23. Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet. Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which translated means God with us. Now, is there any doubt about what Isaiah's prophecy back here in Isaiah 7 is talking about? No, it's talking about the Lord's birth hundreds of years later. In the New Testament, The Jewish authors use the Old Testament in four ways, and this is one of those ways. The reference to Isaiah 7.14 by Matthew is an example of a literal Old Testament prophecy being literally fulfilled in the New Testament. This is what Fruchtenbaum had to say about that. This is a quotation of Isaiah 7.14. The context of Isaiah 7.14 is predicting that when the Messiah is born, he will be born of a virgin. That is the literal meaning of Isaiah 7.14. In the New Testament, there is a literal fulfillment of the literal prophecy, and so the passage is quoted by the New Testament. In rabbinic hermeneutics, which the New Testament authors would have known, this is referred to as pashat, meaning simple. Now, the other levels that the rabbis can get into can get very mystical and really out of bounds. But when they're doing a literal interpretation, they're on a little more solid ground. Now, there's much controversy over whether the Hebrew word Alma means virgin or young woman. Now, among the Bible translations that I routinely examine, the word is translated young woman in only three of them. One of those is the Tanakh. The other two are the Revised Standard Version and the Net Bible. Now the Tanakh, being a Jewish publication, is obviously invested in denying the virgin birth of Jesus, therefore it's not surprising that they use young woman. The word is never used to refer to a married woman. It's only in modern times that this word has been understood as meaning something other than a virgin. Now Rashi, who lived from 1040 to 1105, which is what, 950 years ago, was a European Jewish rabbi, I believe he's in Europe anyway, of the Middle Ages who was vehemently opposed to any interpretation of the Old Testament that even suggested Christianity. Nevertheless, he interpreted this verse as a reference to the Messiah and a virgin birth. And he wrote this. Behold, the Alma shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel. This means that our creator shall be with us. And this is the sign. The one who conceive is a girl who never in her life has had intercourse with any man. Upon this one shall the Holy Spirit have power. So you see, the rabbis understood, now I don't know how many of them today would agree with Rashi here, but he understood what this is saying. He just doesn't want to apply it to Jesus and Mary, see? So his interpretation's correct. but he's not going to allow that it has anything to do with Christianity. In the word, there's another word in Hebrew, Bethulah, which is a word translated virgin, but it was also used in some circumstances to refer to a married woman, which explains the use of Alma instead, because Alma never applies to a married woman. It might refer to just a young woman, but the implication is that she's still a virgin. In modern Hebrew, if not earlier, Bethulah is considered to be a synonym for Alma. So translating Alma as virgin is entirely appropriate. And the word means a maiden, a young woman, a girl, or a virgin. It refers to a young woman in a state of virginity, a marriageable girl, or a young woman. The word is not a technical term for virginity, but it refers to a young woman whose personal characteristics include virginity. The word is not used to identify a young woman who is not a virgin. Whenever the word is used in the Old Testament refers to a virgin, one who is not sexually active, or is used in an indeterminate sense, that is in a context that does not involve the sexual experience of the young woman in question. So that rules out the idea that this is a son born to Isaiah. Isaiah was married and already had a son. Now the Septuagint, Translate this word by use of the Greek word parthenos, which refers to a virgin or to a maiden who has not known a man. So the Greeks understood this word to also be indicating that's referring to a young girl who's still a virgin. Furthermore, this word was used in conjunction with the definite article that is a specific virgin was a subject and not just any virgin. You notice when I had the verse up there, our NASB said a virgin. I cross that out, and I put the there, because the text has the definite article. It does not have the indefinite article. And why the NASB translated it that way, I don't know. I think they were trying to fudge a little bit on whether, on who this young girl was. I don't know why they would do that, given the Matthew confirmation later in Matthew 1, but I'm just speculating about that. Anyway, that's not a, using A by the NASB is not a faithful rendering of the text. The definite article V is the correct rendering, which is in the Tanakh, the Septuagint, the New King James, the Holman Bible, the English Standard Bible, and the Lexham Bible. So the literal rendering of the text reads, ha-ama, the virgin. Emmanuel, which is Emmanuel, literally reads with us God, which is obviously a fitting name for the God-man who dwelt among men, right? So if you're gonna have somebody whose name means with us God, he's gonna be born of a virgin, and he's going to be the God-man, man and God, and that's a very appropriate name for what happened with Mary and Jesus at Nazareth, isn't it? Now the reason for God's command to Isaiah to take his son with him when he sought out the king was revealed. And there's some disagreement about whether verse 15 refers to the Messiah or to Shaar Yahshuv. I want to read that again. I didn't mean to have it attached to the scripture I read a little bit ago. He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. Now, those who believe it refers to Messiah have to go to some verses in chapter seven that we're going to cover next week, verses 20 to 22, which refers to a period of oppression. I'm sorry, those who believe it refers to these verses in seven later, think it refers to a period of oppression which coincides with the Roman occupation of Israel at the time of Messiah's birth, indicating an application to Messiah. And Michael Rydelnik is, Dr. Rydelnik is one who holds to that position. This is the most common explanation. So what they're doing is, in Isaiah 7.22 that we'll talk about next week, it talks about Assyria coming in and shading the land. In other words, destroying it and all it's gonna be left to eat is some honey and some curds from the nomads and that kind of thing. But I'm not convinced that this can possibly refer to the time of the Messiah's birth, because the context of verses 20-22 refers to the Assyrian invasion of Judah when Hezekiah was king. Agriculture was not dissipated in Israel during the time of the Lord's birth. There had been a long period of subjugation to first Greece and then Rome, but the land was not devastated when Jesus was born in Nazareth. Food other than curds and honey was available for consumption. Some of his disciples were fishermen, and there were sheep and cattle readily available for temple sacrifice and for food. In other words, the land was not decimated at the time of the Lord's birth. Vegetables, grains, and viticulture were all being produced according to normal operating procedures. There was, however, a great deal of agricultural devastation during the Assyrian invasion, as will be noted in Isaiah 7.20. You can't take Isaiah 7.20 and say it applies to when the Messiah is born. It didn't. It was applicable to this time of the Assyrian invasion. And in those days, destroying the agricultural capabilities of the land was part of the standard operating procedure for invading armies. We even have a name for it. We call it scorched earth. They've been used for millennium warfare. They were even used in this country during the Civil War when Grant cut a wide swath through the South and burned everything inside, including what was then the city of Atlanta. Scarlet O'Hara had a fit. At the very least, invading armies appropriated every bit of food available to feed themselves during the invasion. So what I'm gonna suggest here next week now when we get to it is that verse 20 is applicable to the Assyrian invasion. It's not applicable several hundred years later to the time of the Lord's birth. So it's not referring to the Messiah. Other theologians believe this verse refers to Shaar Yashuv, which explains why God told the prophet to take that kid with him to meet the king. This is the minority point of view, but I think it makes more sense. And I think the following verse then, verse 16, serves to confirm that assertion. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. So Sha'ar Yashuv must have been a very young boy at that time, but before the time that boy could make moral distinctions of his own volition. The kings of Israel and Iran would be removed from power and no longer be a threat to Judah. Assyria was still a threat for the future, but those two nations are identified here as posing the immediate threat. So I'm in agreement with Fruchtenbaum here that versus 15 and 16, that became the sign that went to Ahaz, or by the time this boy, Shir Yashuv, would have been able to make his own volitional decisions, Israel and Syria would no longer be threat to Ahaz and to Judah. That makes the most sense to me. It makes no sense to say that eating the curds and honey was what Jesus was born into. The Bible never gives that indication and Judah was not decimated when he was born to the point where they were reduced to that. Anyway, we'll continue on then in Chapter 7 next week. Father, thank You for Your Word. Thank You for these wonderful things that we can learn from the Old Testament about You, about Israel, about prophecy in the future, which we still are understanding as it unfolds before our very eyes. And we thank You for these amazing truths, and we thank You that You preserve these things for us to know to this day. We thank you that we live in this time where we can know things that today that even some of the Old Testament prophets long to look into because they didn't understand them. It's a wonderful blessing that we have to know these things. And I pray that that you lead us and guide us into teaching them and understanding them truthfully, according to how you had them written. Father, I ask that you bless our pastor today as he brings us a message in the next hour. I pray for your blessing on his life and on his ministry and on his work. as he exegetes the word of God for us so well. And we pray for him as he prepares to move to a new pastorate. And we pray that you continue to do these things and you continue to bless him. We pray for his wife and his children, that you bless them and keep them as they walk through this life, helping him to minister in his capacity as pastor teacher. We pray for their health and their well-being. We pray, Father, for our elders and our deacons that we lead well and we serve well. And we pray that you lead us and guide us in this search for a pastor to replace our current pastor. And we pray that you would bring the right man to us who will continue to bless this assembly with biblical truth. We are so grateful for all that you do for us, Lord. We thank you for this beautiful day that we have here today. I pray that as we have a fellowship meal together after church today, that will be a blessed time of fellowship amongst one with another here in this body. And I pray, Lord, that you would bring people to us who want to hear the word of God. well-taught according to how you had it written. That is so rare today, and we want to be true to that calling. So I ask for your help, and I also ask that you'd bring people to us who want to understand the Bible in that way. So we love you, and we thank you for your presence with us here in this house this morning. In Jesus' name, amen.