Calvin on Isaiah 7:16

An RTS/DC staff member asked me about Calvin's interpretation on Isaiah 7:16 where he suggests that the reference in that verse to the "child" is not to be identified with the "child" in Isa. 7:14. Provided below are my thoughts.

John Calvin’s commentary work on Holy Scripture remains an example of reliable scholarship that has stood the test of time. Although nearly a half century since its publications, this monumental exegetical analysis stands as a foundation for students of Scripture and must not be dismissed as antiquarian as many often do.

Having stated the high praise which this commentary series deserves, it should also be stated that no commentator is without error. Calvin on Isaiah 7:16 demonstrates one such example. In that section, Calvin comments that the “child” (na'ar) mentioned in that passage is not to be associated with the child born to the virgin in the well-known passage of v.14 since v.16 mentions that the destruction of the two king-alliance of Rezin and Pekah would predate this child coming to adulthood. If this child is identified with the virgin-child of v.14, then the destruction of these two kingdoms would have to be contemporary with the days of Christ. That would indeed be historical revisionism!

Apparently, this historical anomaly is what led Calvin to a reanalysis of the Hebrew text of Isa. 7:16. In so doing, Calvin comes to the following philological conclusions in that aforementioned verse. First, he states that the definite article for “the child” (the ha in hanna'ar) is not to be understood as the definite article “the,” but rather as a reference to the time of period of a child, that is of being children or childhood. Thus, for Calvin, this is a generic reference to “children” who are in the state of childhood, not the virgin-child of v.14. Second, he states positively that if such the direct antecedent were to be the virgin-child, the author would have used the Hebrew demonstrative pronoun “this” (hazzeh), clearly identifying the two “child” references as being one of the same figure ~ Isa. 7:14 refers to the sign of the child born to a virgin and “this child” is the one and same in v.16.

In commenting on Calvin, one must begin by commending his commitment to the grammatico-historical exegesis, as he attempts to be consistent with the passage and its Messianic fulfillment and historical context. I must, however, differ with his analysis and conclusions. First, he offers awkward treatments of the Hebrew. Although it is true that the use of the demonstrative “this” (hazzeh) would clarify the antecedent, the definite article (ha in hanna'ar) serves the same purpose very well and does not require the demonstrative pronoun. In order for the Hebrew to state Calvin’s position ~ne'arim is required, meaning “children,” which is the absolute plural of nar'ar without the article ha. Second, v.14-15 describes this “virgin-child” as one who will be able to distinguish between good and evil (v.15). That same description is offered for the child in v.16; Calvin offers no comment on this obvious and clear corollary. Third, the use of a definite noun to communicate an abstraction is not well attested if at all. The occurrences within Biblical Hebrew remain dubious at best. Calvin weakens his argument by using an obscure grammatical concept to defend a difficult and obscure reading.

From a grammatical analysis, Calvin’s comments are very questionable. What, however, can be said of the historical setting of v.16? It seems apparent that Calvin was led to his philological reassessment of the text because of the historical argument. After all, if the destruction of the two kings mentioned in v.16 cannot be relegated to the time of Christ, what can this reference of “the child” be? Indeed, Calvin is correct to point this out. At this point, we must review and survey the principles of Biblical interpretation in prophetic texts; this is a task that is beyond the scope of this simple paper, yet a simple explanation will be presented for the sake of proposing an alternative to that of our beloved instructor. Briefly, messianic prophecies, or typological references must be seen as fulfilled at two stages: 1) an earthly reality for the nation of Israel, 2) the eschatological fulfillment in the New Covenant. As an example, we will analyze the covenantal promises to Abraham in the Pentateuch. The overarching tension in the Abrahamic narratives (Gen. 12-25) is the necessity for the birth of a son. Thus, the promises and prophecies of the “son of Abraham” must be seen, first, as fulfilled in the birth of Isaac. The New Testament specifies that this initial stage fulfillment was actually no fulfillment at all. That is the reason for the emphasis on the singular fulfillment of Christ as the true son of Abraham in Gal. 3:16. In that passage in Galatians, Paul stresses how the prophecy of the “seed” of Abraham was singular and not plural. Paul sees Christ and Christ alone as the lone fulfillment of that prophecy. The Abrahamic narratives, however, describe Isaac as the realization of that promise. Are we left to choose between the two? Not at all, but only as long as we can see that Isaac is the initial, stage-one fulfillment of the promise and the true (or eschatological) fulfillment is found in Christ as the TRUE son of Abraham.

This method of prophetic interpretation can be applied to each aspect of the Abrahamic promises. The land that is promised to Abraham is also a significant theme in the Pentateuchal narratives. The fulfillment of this promise in the geo-political land of Israel (ancient Canaan) is the major theme of the Book of Joshua, even seen in the latter part of the Book of Numbers. From Psalm 95 and Hebrews 3-4, we see that this land of Canaan was not the true “rest” that God envisioned for the descendents of Abraham. Rather, it was a type of the true land of the eternal kingdom of God, which is to be ushered in by the Great Son of Abraham. The land of promise in Genesis must be seen, first, as the typological, geo-political land of Israel, secondly (and eschatologically) in the Eternal Kingdom of God. The nation that Abraham is said to be promised is, first, the nation of Israel, secondly (or eschatologically) in the Kingdom of God in the New Covenant. We see this dual layer fulfillment in Biblical prophetic texts, typologies, etc.

In the case of Isa. 7:14-16, the Christological (or eschatological) reading is clear and undisputed. For that reason, I will not comment on it further in this paper. To what extent, however, can a stage one fulfillment be seen? The child, first, must be seen at the level of fulfillment for the nation of Israel. In that regard, I suggest the son of Isaiah, Shir-Jashub fits that fulfillment. The “sign” that is offered is not the son per se in the context of the Old Testament text, but rather the destruction of the two kings. The New Testament reinterprets this “sign” as the child itself, hence it is to be seen as Messianic and fully realized in Christ. Calvin suggests that the birth of this child was not of a virgin and that the new name “Immanuel” could only refer to the Messiah. True, yet one must be mindful of the fact that theophoric elements were regular parts of personal names. What is significant in the Old Testament context is the meaning of the son Shir-Jashub, meaning “a remnant will return.” In other words, there will be exile but a remnant will be saved and preserved; this remnant theology is a significant part of these opening chapters of Isaiah. Thus, for Old Testament Israel, the passage could be a reference to the son of the prophet, whose name offers hope and promise in spite of the destruction of the unholy alliance of the northern king with their Aramean neighbors. The sign for God’s promise is the destruction of these kings but also in the name of that son. The New Testament authors reanalyze this passage and see a stronger Chistological element in the name “Immanuel” and the supernatural birth of the child. For the son of Isaiah, “Immanuel” may have been another name, merely a name like so many other theophoric names. For the New Testament, this is obviously more than just a mere name!

The reference to the destruction of these two kings then is an obvious contemporary event with Isaiah and his son. Yet, what of its fulfillment in the New Covenant? Can we read such a destruction of kings in the New Covenant? In fact, we do not need to hold prophecy to that precise a fulfillment and understand this reference as to the historical setting of Isaiah’s day alone. This, again, is not without precedence. 2 Samuel 7 is the great Kingship covenant made with David, which is seen as fulfilled in Christ as the true king in the line of David. Yet, in 2 Samuel 7:14 there is a reference to this royal son of David as “committing iniquity” and “being disciplined with the rod of men.” Such references cannot be applied to Christ! When one reads this account repeated (or transformed) in 1 Chronicles 17, this reference to a “sinful” king is absent; there is no mention that this chosen son of David would be so depraved. My reading is this: 2 Samuel 7 offers a prophecy of royalty and kingship in the line of David. His son would continue this royal line and kingship will never depart from his descendents. The first stage fulfillment is the focus on 2 Samuel 7, namely in Solomon. He is one who commits iniquity and is disciplined by the rods of men. The Chronicler, after the period of the exile, brings in a heightened sense of messianic fulfillment – this was characteristic of post-exilic Israel and second temple Judaism. Thus, 1 Chronicles focuses not on that initial stage, but rather on the final stage, namely Christ. Thus, no mention is made of his iniquities, discipline, or rods of men. Returning to our passage in Isa. 7:14-16, the historical reference to the destruction of the two kings can be a reference applied to the days of the prophet alone; hence not to be realized in the New Covenant. The book of Revelation does, however, speak of the alliance of nations to gather for one final battle at the end of the days and the return of Christ. Such an unholy conglomeration cannot in the realm of impossibility in our reading of Isa. 7:14-16 where the true son of Isaiah, the one truly born of a Virgin (not merely a young-maiden) comes to vanquish and snuff the enemies of God in one final blow. His foes may gather together and channel their energies and efforts for the final time, yet the power of our God cannot be stopped. He will be victorious. Such a reading is possible.