Tag: Ahaz

Part 1: Moral Clarity in an Age of Antiheroes

To accurately understand Isaiah 5.20 against the backdrop of modern moral ambiguity, it is crucial to comprehend its original historical and literary context…

Brent Pollard

Text: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” — Isaiah 5.20

Expository Background: The Context of Isaiah 5.20

To accurately understand Isaiah 5.20 against the backdrop of modern moral ambiguity, it is crucial to comprehend its original historical and literary context. The prophet Isaiah shared his prophecies during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, a timeframe of around 740–686 BC. Concurrently, the kingdom of Judah experienced both material prosperity and a concerning spiritual decline.

The Literary Structure of Isaiah 5

Isaiah 5 opens with the famous “Song of the Vineyard” (vv. 1–7), in which God compares Israel to a carefully tended vineyard that produced sour grapes instead of the anticipated good fruit. The vineyard represents the chosen community, whereas the wild grapes symbolize their moral decline, despite being bestowed with plentiful spiritual blessings.

Following this parable, Isaiah announces six “woes” (vv. 8–23) that clearly illustrate how Israel has produced these “wild grapes.” Each lament tackles a particular transgression that had become prevalent in Judean society:

  1. An insatiable craving for acquiring land and possessions (vv. 8–10)
  2. A state of intoxication coupled with a lack of spiritual enthusiasm (vv. 11–17)
  3. Intentional misconduct and ridicule of the sacred (vv. 18–19)
  4. Labeling what is evil as good and vice versa (v. 20)
  5. Excessive pride and unwarranted confidence (v. 21)
  6. Corrupt authority and injustice (vv. 22–23)

The Specific Context of Verse 20

The fourth woe (verse 20) is essential in this list, underscoring its significance. The Hebrew phrasing employs four parallel clauses that form a chiastic, or mirrored, structure:

  • A: “those who call evil good”
  • B: “and good evil”
  • B’: “who substitute darkness for light”
  • A’: “and light for darkness”

This literary device underscores the significant shift in moral standards that occurred in Judean society. The messenger does not reflect accidental ethical ambiguity but rather an intentional and systematic inversion of the divine order established by the Creator.

Historical Circumstances

Archaeological evidence and scriptural records suggest that the land of Judah faced significant social unrest in the eighth century. While wealth increased and an elite class emerged, many people suffered from poverty and oppression. The political alliances of that era required concessions to the customs and beliefs of non-believing nations.

Crucially, in Judea, society developed complex justifications for actions that clearly violated divine laws. The wealthy justified their mistreatment of the poor as vital for economic growth. Religious leaders conformed to local customs to maintain political ties. Social elites altered moral standards to fit their personal goals.

Isaiah 5:20 specifically highlights the changing perspectives on morality within both intellectual and cultural contexts. The Hebrew verb amar, meaning “call,” suggests more than just a personal viewpoint; it denotes an authoritative pronouncement—key individuals were reshaping society’s moral discourse.

Theological Principles for Application

Several hermeneutical principles enable the legitimate application of Isaiah 5:20 to modern contexts:

  1. Divine moral standards are universal: The distinctions upheld by Isaiah testify to God’s immutable nature. What God deems wicked in one age remains wicked throughout all ages.
  2. Patterns of Betrayal in the Covenant: Though we do not belong to ethnic Israel, the New Testament recognizes the church as Israel’s spiritual counterpart (Galatians 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9).
  3. The Influence of Culture on Moral Understanding: Isaiah’s message targets the broader evolution of societal ethical standards, making his warnings perpetually relevant.
  4. The Weight of Leadership Endures: Isaiah’s woes address influential figures who shaped public values. Today, spiritual leaders bear a similar responsibility.

Does Isaiah 7:14 Describe A Virgin Or A Young Woman?

Friday’s Column: Brent’s Bent 

Brent Pollard

With Christmas on Sunday, thoughts turn to the Christ child, born between 6 and 4 B.C. in Bethlehem. While the baby Jesus is the focus of most of the debate surrounding the innumerable nativity scenes that dot lawns and yards across the United States, His mother, Mary, is a divisive figure in her own right. In his purported “translation” of the Bible, Thomas Jefferson, for instance, left out the story of Jesus’ virgin birth. As with many others, Jefferson disbelieved in miracles. Before IVF, such an unconventional conception would have been unthinkable for the erudite of the Age of Enlightenment. However, some Christian groups today don’t believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. One way that the latter rationalizes their view is to point out that the word translated as “virgin” (almah) can likewise mean a young woman. 

There seems to be no reason it can’t mean both “virgin” and “young woman.” Those preoccupied with the debate over the virgin birth of Christ miss the other point of Isaiah 7.14. Aram and Israel threatened King Ahaz of Judah. Ahaz’s fear was palpable. God instructed Ahaz to request a sign to indicate Judah’s deliverance. God told Ahaz that he could even ask for something extraordinary. Ahaz was not a righteous king, but he pretended to be godly here by saying he would not test God. To this, God replied with the words most commonly associated with Jesus: “Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel” (NASB). God revealed that this was a sign He would send to Ahaz. Moreover, God would remove the danger posed by Aram and Israel before this child reached adulthood (Isaiah 7.16). 

I’ve seen well-intentioned brothers argue that this prophecy can only refer to Jesus’ virgin birth and that we must not permit others to interpret it as referring to a young woman. However, I wonder what good a sign concerning Christ would have done King Ahaz. Ahaz was a historical figure who existed more than 700 years before the birth of Christ. How could a messianic prophecy promise Ahaz that Judah would not fall? The answer is that it couldn’t. Ahaz required immediate fulfillment. In the following chapter, Isaiah documents the event as having been accomplished. Isaiah and his wife had a son, and his birth foretold that the Assyrians would plunder those who opposed Judah (Isaiah 8.1-4). The prophetess was not a virgin since she and Isaiah were married and had given birth to at least one of Isaiah’s children (Isaiah 7.3). Thus, a young woman was the immediate realization of the sign, but a virgin was the ultimate fulfillment. 

The sign’s demands tested the faith of Joseph and Ahaz, but Joseph succeeded where Ahaz did not. Ahaz needed to trust God and wait for the sign He promised. But Ahaz sought out the Assyrians and allied with them (2 Chronicles 28.16). Joseph was well aware that a virgin could not normally conceive a child. Therefore, he was going to dissolve his relationship with Mary privately. But an angel announced to Joseph that Mary was carrying a child the Holy Spirit conceived. Joseph believed the prophetic sign from God and acted accordingly. Joseph’s response should be ours today. Rather than quibble over the precise definition of “almah,” we should believe that God means what He says.