| Articles | Guest Book | Pictures | Contact us |
Milk and Honey
In our personal study recently, we were reading in the first chapter of Matthew. As is often the case, some word or idea will catch our attention and cause us to reference other scriptures. We noticed that Matthew tells us that the Virgin Mary's conception and delivery of Jesus was a fulfillment of prophecy.1 This, of course, we already knew. The virgin birth was given for a sign, and the reference is back to Isaiah 7:14. It caused us to open Isaiah's prophecy and reread the passage.
In this article we wish to examine Isaiah chapter 7, and make some observations concerning the text, and prophecy in general. Upon occasion we will consult a few commentaries after we think the Lord has granted us light on a passage. Unlike one minister we know our "vast religious library" is of more use as cannon fodder than finding the truth. The passage in Isaiah serves as a good example. Before proceeding farther, please read the entire 7th chapter of Isaiah.
Introduction
With all Scriptures, it is important to know whom the writer is addressing, and when it was written. If that were not the case, God would not have inspired the Old Testament prophets to identify the time frame for us.2 Scholars tell us he prophesied in the last half of the eighth century BCE when the Northern Ten Tribes declined rapidly.3 (Now you know my sole use of scholarly tomes: finding precise dates.) It is clear from reading Isaiah that he did have access to the king's court at Jerusalem. In the first verse of chapter 7, we learn that Ahaz is a troubled character. The things that are written have direct application to the day in which Ahaz lived.
Were it not for the interpretation that Matthew provides, we would fail to see the dual nature of the prophetic passages. This is a typical feature of most of the Old Testament prophets. It requires great diligence to separate the near-term sections from distant prophecy. God gave us a tool for dividing the Scriptures: the Bible itself. God has furnished us with The Book of Daniel to sort the passages. In similar fashion, Luke is the most chronologically correct account of all the gospels. Let us notice a few things from Isaiah's text.
Verses 1-2
The first three verses recount the alliance that the Northern Tribes (Israel) made with Syria to resist the threat of invasion from Assyria. This is a symptom of a great problem. The Northern Tribes no longer trusted Jehovah for deliverance. Judah (and Jerusalem) vacillates between godly kings (like Hezekiah) and ungodly kings (like Ahaz). Isaiah is careful to point out that not only is Ahaz in turmoil, but the people were also moved.4 We can certainly understand the concern. Even in our modern day, no country relishes the idea of conducting war without allies. Israel having lined up with Syria against Judah to force them into an alliance was bad enough. An even larger enemy (Assyria) loomed on the horizon.
From a military point of view, we suspect that the proposed alliance would have been ineffective. Notice that they waste their precious resources fighting Judah instead of preparing for battle with the common enemy Assyria. This ignores, of course, the peculiar aspects that Israel was to rely on God, not on human devices. Although the text does not clearly state it, we suppose that King Rezin and King Pekah could not prevail against Judah because God would not allow it. Ahaz was certainly not obedient to God in all things, but Jehovah was merciful. In case you are wondering what God thought Judah should do, read Isaiah chapter 8. Joining the alliance was not God's plan. Judah and Israel's obedience was their surety, not human invention.
Verses 3-9
God sent the prophet Isaiah to Ahaz with a message. God told Ahaz not to fear because Syria and Ephraim would be broken within 65 years.5 Scholars tell us that Syria was conquered 11 years later (735 BCE), but Israelites were not deported and replaced in mass until 669 BCE.6 This fulfilled the prophecy to be "broken, that is not a people." God warns Ahaz that this blessing is conditioned upon his belief. This isn't the just-repeat-after-me type belief that many evangelicals pass off as saving faith. Carnal man, after all, isn't even capable of producing that type of faith. This is a true Bible faith - nothing wavering. This kind of faith produces a change in action. This is the living or active faith that James encourages us to exercise.
For Ahaz to see this deliverance, he had to trust God and refuse to join the coalition. Any doubt would cause him to change course towards timely (not eternal) destruction. This is not just dull ancient history. There are important lessons for believers today. Paul understood that these Old Testament experiences were examples for our instruction.7 Our obedience and faith are crucial for God's approval. We must also realize that our actions speak volumes about our faith, much more than our professions.
Verses 10-13
In order to bolster his faith, God offers to allow Ahaz to name a sign. At first read, the answer Ahaz gave sounds proper. "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord." This ought to be the attitude of every servant of God. God's word should be all that is required. If we knew no more than this about Ahaz, we would be tempted to esteem him as a faithful king. A clearer picture is presented in II Kings 16:2-3. We are clearly told he did not obey God righteously. Ahaz also participated in pagan worship and child sacrifice, as had many of Israel's kings.
Understanding the character of Ahaz it is clear that although he gave a good reason for not picking a sign, obedience was not his objective. Like most religious folk, he can make a clever excuse for his actions. Perhaps we could credit Ahaz with enough savvy to know better than to tempt God. The truth is Ahaz was not going to try God. It is the stubborn attitude of Ahaz specifically and Judah in general that sets the tone for the successive verses and chapter 8. The lessons that flow from a full understanding are multi-layered with as many facets as a diamond.
If you doubt our contention, simply begin reading in the first chapter of Isaiah and note the exceptionally harsh language Jehovah uses to describe Israel. They are a sinful nation that has forsaken the Lord. (1:4) Their sacrifices are vain, and God considers them as polluted as Sodom and Gomorrah. (1:10) Jerusalem, the faithful city has become a harlot. (1:21) The land is full of idols. (2:8) Jerusalem is ruined and Judah is fallen. (3:8) All this is written prior to Judah being conquered, indicating that God is referring to their spiritual condition, not their political circumstances. Notice the colon in the middle of chapter 3 verse 8. The second clause refers to the first. The ruin under consideration is their obedience.
The Apostles and early church language agreed with Isaiah. The Apostle John referred to Jerusalem as Sodom and Egypt.8 Over and over he refers to Jerusalem as Babylon.9 The Apostle Peter refers to Jerusalem as Babylon.10 In the midst of this dark picture, almost in spite of Israel's flagrant disobedience, a restoration is promised. The language for this restitution is very specific. Zion was going to be redeemed. (1:26) In the last days the Lord was going to establish his house in the top of the mountains. (2:2) The day of the Lord (2:12), also called that day (2:17, 20; 3:7, 18; 4:1, 2) would bring judgement on the disobedient and restore righteousness to Zion.
Because of this great dichotomy, most modern scholars form doctrines that are wild flights of imagination. Premillenialist teach that God "hit the snooze bar" on His clock of prophecy. At some point in the future, the Lord will return and re-establish a political kingdom for Israel. Rather than see dual identities in the text, they force blessings on rebels that God was intent on punishing. We would simply point out that Zion was a specific geographic area within the city of Jerusalem. Isn't this very similar to Paul's teachings about the elect who were reserved as in Elijah's day?11 Certainly the Apostles understood these scriptures this way, for John used the ideas, words and phrases directly from Isaiah in Revelation.
Compare John's use of the image of Babylon the habitation of foul spirits and unclean and hateful birds (Rev 18:2) with Isaiah's picture of Babylon (Isa 13:19-21). Wild beast would inhabit Babylon after their overthrow. Doleful or weird creatures and owls shall dwell there. The owl is listed as one of the forbidden "unclean" birds in Moses law.12 We need to understand that the New Testament really isn't new. Both old and new teach the same eternal truths. In the Old Testament, the lessons were by types and shadows. Why are the prophecies so difficult to understand? Is it not reasonable to conclude that God veiled the prophecies for the same reason that Christ taught in parables? They are given in this manner to be hidden from the disobedient.13
Understanding who is addressed in verse 13 is very important. Jehovah is speaking particularly to the house of David, from whom Jesus descended. "It is a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?" My grandmother used to speak of people that "made her tired," meaning to disgust. In this text, the Hebrew word lawaw which means to tire, or make disgusted; to faint, grieve or loathe. It was a minor thing for Ahaz to disgust other men. His heathen practices should have been revolting. More importantly, Ahaz and the house of David were disgusting Jehovah.
Because of the grotesque disobedience, God himself chose the sign. The key is to remember that the sign is given to the house of David. The birth of a child, taken in the scale of a whole nation, is a very small sign. In a nation of several million people, one birth would not even have been noticed. Placed in the context of a disobedient nation that ignored God's laws, it would have passed without notice. Given to the house of David, the royal lineage of the King of Israel, it should have been very important. After all, a monarchy only survives by producing male offspring.
Verse 14
Verse 14 tells us that: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Remember that there is some controversy about the word virgin. Much to the consternation of ultra-orthodox scholars, the RSV, as does the English translation of the Jewish Old Testament,14 uses the word as young woman. Conservatives howl that it is an attack on the virgin birth of Christ. In fairness to those scholars, we must admit that the Hebrew word almah, translated virgin, means a veiled lass or damsel, strictly speaking. Maiden and virgin are secondary meanings. Were it not for Matthew's inspired translation, we would be forced to agree that the context requires the birth of Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8:1-4 as the immediate fulfillment of this prophecy.
Notice that with the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, God repeats some of the prophetic proclamations. Before he grows out of infancy, Assyria will take away the riches of Damascus (Syria) and Samaria (area North of Judah). These are the very kings Ahaz worried over.15 The Northern Tribes captivity stood as a warning to Judah. They were not to look to a confederation for security. This is the prophecy that is fulfilled in Isaiah's generation. The sign of Immanuel's birth was given to the house of David. It was not fulfilled until the birth of Christ and Matthew tells us so.
Verse 15
Verses 15 and 16 seem very important to us. The passage says "butter and honey shall he eat that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good." Butter and honey is an idiomatic expression. It is used to describe Canaan in Exodus 3. This is the consistent usage in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Job's friend Zophar used it to symbolize blessings.16 Solomon seems to indicate that honey is a metaphor for glory.17 Eating butter and honey clearly indicates a special position. Honey is an important commodity in the Middle East yet today. There is, however, a cause-effect relationship in this verse. The result of this privileged diet is that the child knows to refuse evil and choose good.
The commentaries we have available proved useless. Some noted only that it, butter (or curds) and honey, were what children ate in that era. I suppose that means the old Mother Goose nursery rhymes can be added to our religious library. The comment may be true, but it is a classic gloss-over. Another commentary remarked that it indicated the extent of the deprivations in Judah after their defeat by Assyria.18 This contention is complete nonsense. The expression butter and honey cannot mean promise of blessings and plenty in Exodus and Deuteronomy and starvation here. It must indicate a special or anointed position. When the frontiersman pushed into America's interior through the Cumberland Gap, did they find milk & honey? No. Raising cattle and keeping bees imply established agriculture. When God promised to bless Israel with a land, did he describe Canaan as a land flowing with destitution? I don't think so. God was blessing Israel (and punishing the Canaanites) with lands and flocks they did not acquire by labor.
Even more important, notice the spiritual implications of this prophecy. What would have happened if Immanuel had not been fed butter and honey? The answer is obvious but unpleasant to Trinitarians. Isaiah indicates this special blessing or anointing enables Immanuel to refuse the evil and choose the good. Matthew has applied this verse to Christ. We conclude therefore that Trinitarian doctrine is false. Jesus, the Son of God, was anointed of God in a special way. He was not the very person of God, for God does not require training to refuse evil. This passage, along with literally thousands of others, cannot make sense if you believe in a Trinity.
Verses 16-20
The prophecy contained here relates directly to the impending invasions. Damascus fell in 732 BCE. Samaria fell in 722 BCE. The flies and bees that are gathered from Egypt and Assyria refer to the clash of their respective armies. Those two rivals battled at Eltekeh in 701 BCE. Both armies fed off the countries they marched through, just as the Union Army under Sherman did when they marched through Georgia. Sherman's 60 mile wide swath of destruction was a tactic designed to make warfare a horrible experience. As devastating as it was (ask anyone from the South, Sherman is hated yet today), the campaign between Egypt and Assyria would have been worse. In ancient times, pillaging was part of the victor's reward. In modern times Army officers make an effort to stop or at least control such activity.
The razor that is hired refers to the future Assyrian king Sennacherib. By his own accounts he leveled 46 cities in Judah during the campaign. We learn from the Scriptures that hired is the precise term. We learn in II Chronicles 28:21 that the king of Assyria was bribed into the fight by Ahaz. The king of Judah literally brought down his own destruction, not only by disobedience to God, but by contracting his own enemy. We note the strong language found in II Chronicles 28:22: "And in the time of his distress did he trespass yet more against the Lord: this is that king Ahaz." No wonder Jehovah said of him will ye weary God also?
Verses 21-25
There are some phrases in the Scriptures that always catch our attention. Most believers grasp the New Testament images of the shepherd leading the sheep. They illustrate important aspects of our lives. In the Old Testament prophecies, there are similar linguistic devices that demand special attention. Many simply read over of the phrase without thought. We read the Bible for many years before the significance dawned on us. The phrase in that day marks many special passages. We believe a close examination of these passages will prove this phrase refers to the New Testament gospel day. A single citation should suffice. When the Spirit of God fell on the early church on the Day of Pentecost, a miracle occurred that enabled 15 different nationalities to hear the gospel in their native tongue. (And the miracle was in the hearing, not the speaking.) When Peter began his recorded sermon, he defended his brethren against the accusation that they were drunk on new wine.19 Peter identified this miraculous event thus: "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; and it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh."
Verses 21 and 22 describe how things will be in that gospel day. Out of the tiny flock that is tended (one heifer and two sheep) an abundance of milk and honey flowed. (This must prove milk and honey is an idiom to mean spiritual blessings for sheep do not produce honey.) This small group produced enough to supply every one that was left in the land. Looking at it in these terms, what point in the gospel day is under consideration? When did a small group, tended by one individual, turn the world upside down?20 This a picture of Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, nurturing the disciples during his time on earth. In Revelation 4:7, four beasts or living creatures are used to picture the ministry. The second of those four beasts is likened to a calf or young cow. This illustrates the ministry's ability to feed God's people spiritually. Obedient believers are likened to sheep. While we tend to think that the Good Shepherd tended to the ministry only during the Disciples day, we must realize that if the sheep are expected to feed well, the Lord must bless ministers yet today.
Verses 23 and 24 picture a removal of blessing. Briers and thorns replace where a multitude of vines had been. The briers and thorns are both symptom and cause of the judgement. Rather that keeping the commandments of Jehovah, Israel and Judah went after pagan gods. The exchange of vines for briers indicates a removal of anointing in the same ground that had provided their blessing. Further judgement would fall for men with arrows and bows were going to come into the land. Notice the warning Jehovah gave Israel in Leviticus 26:21-25. "And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate. And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me; Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins. And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant."
Conclusion
The book of Isaiah, like all prophets, deals with Israel and Judah's disobedience, both immediate and long term. Jehovah is faithful. The correction he applied was according to their sins. The writer of Hebrews tells us every transgression up to that point had received just recompense of reward.21 The object of this punishment was to correct action. God's nature is love, not cruelty.22 God corrects man for his good. If we bear chastisement and learn from it, rather than trespass yet more against God, we shall be sons and not bastards.23 Notice that enduring the correction does not create the relationship. Bastards are sons, after all. They are just not recognized as sons. If we wish to be manifest as the sons of God, we must become as Christ, our great pattern of obedience.
May the Lord bless.
Harmony Church
background courtesy of boogiejack.com