9 If you will not give your support¹ to Yahweh, you surely shall not be supported.²

(MISB: Isa. 7:9)

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

1. The people “shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind”. They did not make Yahweh their support, and so they were afraid. They were afraid because they did not support Yahweh and Yahweh’s Word. The Hebrew verb aman includes the notion of “believe” and “trust”. But it means much more in Hebrew. It means to support or confirm (cf. BDB Lexicon). If I tell you that you can cross the bridge to safety now, and you say I believe it will hold me, have you confirmed that it will hold you? Of course not! To do that you have to walk on it. And if you will not walk on it, then you have not made the bridge your support. The bridge is Messiah, and to enter into trust with him means to support him by making him your support. Therefore, “He who is placing his support in the Sõn holds onto enduring life; but he who does not obey the Sõn shall not see life, but the wrath of the Almĩghty remains over him.” (John 3:36).

 2. If we want the Almighty to support us in that which we cannot do, then we need to support Him in that which we can do. He pays the penalty of sin and he sanctifies us so that we can support Him. And that does not mean just saying, “I believe” and then going your own way. That is not support, nor can it confirm that one has really entered into trust with Him. cf. 1John 2:3; John 14:21; 15:10; Exodus 20:6. Without abiding trust and obeying of the Almighty, no one will have confidence to stand in the day of Yahweh because they confirm not the Law of Yahweh to do it. They will shake in the wind and fall.

14 “Therefore He will give Yãhweh Himself¹  to you as a sign: Look!ⁿ The young virgin²,º is pregnant and bearing a son, and you will proclaim³ his name Immanuelª.

(MISB: Isa. 7:9)

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 1. The text should read “Yahweh Himself” here, יַהְוֶה הוּא. This is one of the 134 places where the scribes altered the divine name to Adonai. Adam Clarke tells us that 25 Kennicott MSS, 9 ancient, and 14 De Rossi MSS still read the divine name here. An official list of changes occurs in the Massōrah (§§ 107-15, Ginsburg’s edition) contains 134. The word order, “Therefore, will give Yahweh Himself to you as a sign” teaches that “Yahweh Himself is the sign”. The Almighty Son is Yahweh Himself. This recalls Gen. 22:8, 14 “The Almighty will be seen for Himself the lamb” or “The Almighty will see to Himself the Lamb...Yahweh will be seen...on the hill Yahweh will be seen.”

 n. Behold! הִנֵּה is used to show that Isaiah is reporting what he has seen in the future by the Spirit of G-d. He has seen the pregnant virgin bearing a son. He has seen “the House of David” lauding the Son with the title “Immanuel”. If the child was not “Yahweh Himself” or the child was born of a woman who was not a virgin, then the prophecy would not be much of a sign. Yet liberals and Rabbis alike have claimed that the child to be was Hezekiah or some other local person, and try to convince us that vs. 16 speaks of the same person, or that 8:8 says he was already born. If such a wondrous sign had been fulfilled then, surely it would have been recorded. Silence is golden. And Yahweh does speak to his Messiah before he is born (cf. Ps. 110:1; Isa. 44:28, 45:1). And his birth is recorded in Matthew.

 2. The word עַלְמָה is used only in cases where the subject is a young virgin woman. The lemma occurs 9x, Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; 1Chron. 15:20; Psa. 46:1, 68:26; Prov. 30:19 ; Song 1:3, 6:8 ; Isa. 7:14. At the first usage, Gen. 24:43, the young virgin woman is also identified with a synonym meaning “virgin” בְּתוּלָה. In Exodus 2:8, Miryam is obviously a young virgin. In the next two cases (1Chron. 15:20; Psa. 46:1) it is the name of a tune (עַל־עֲלָמוֹת) = “according to young virgins”. In Prov. 30:19 the term speaks of romancing a young betrothed virgin; in Song 1:3 of hopeful young virgins, and in 6:8 unmarried young virgins who are neither wives nor concubines. The difference between עַלְמָה and בְּתוּלָה is that the latter is a more general technical term for a virgin of any age, while עַלְמָה would designate a virgin still in her youth. עַלְמָה is reasonably derived from the root עָלַם meaning “hide” “conceal” “cover”, which would then be explained that an עַלְמָה is a young woman whose virginity remains “hidden” or “concealed”.

 o. If your Hebrew Lexicon, even if written by an authority, says that the word can mean a woman who is just married, i.e. after she knew her husband, then do not believe it! These books were written by men. Most of the Lexicons have been worked on by liberal and higher critical scholars. Many of the Lexicographers consulted Rabbis and were misled. Every meaning has to be justified by a concordant word study in the ancient contexts. That is why I cited all the uses of עַלְמָה in the Tenach. It was to show the readers that in no case is any sense except “virgin” required. I also proposed a sensible root derivation for the word in line with its meaning. It has been pointed out by studied and faithful scholars elsewhere that the higher critical lexical speculation are not warranted by the evidence. For instance, Holladay’s Lexicon will say, “young woman (until the birth of the first child)”. What Holladay says is not what Yah said! Yah put the necessary evidence in the Tenach alone to show what the word means. Its very first use for Rivka (Gen. 24:43) applies to a virgin, and so also its second use for Miryam (Ex. 2:8). There is already a term for the change of status associated with the first child. It is called “motherhood”, and the woman is called a “mother” after the child is born. That term is not almah, it is אֵם. An עַלְמָה is a “virgin” who is still young. A בְּתוּלָה is a virgin of any age. Further if the Rabbis should ever make good on the silence argument by producing a usage of almah from their own traditional literature outside the Scripture where it is used of a married woman, then that still would not show that “virgin” is improper for Isaiah 7:14. It would only show that they changed the meaning of the word like the Church changes the meaning σαββάτων (sabbaths) to “week”.

 3. The consonantal MT Hebrew here, קראת has only one pointing that fits the context, קָרָאתָ = “you will call” or “you calleth”, 2nd person masculine singular. “You” refers collectively to the “house of David”; the LXX (Septuagint) agrees exactly with this reading of the text καλέσεις = “you will call” (2ms). “Immanuel” is a Messianic title of Yeshua. It is not Miryam that called him that, but the house of David that will call him that in the future. Matthew’s gloss “they will call” correctly interprets the text (cf. Mt. 1:23). Furthermore, the 1QIsª, Isaiah Scroll from Qumran, reads קרא without the ת on the end. The Sinaiticus LXX is in agreement. This text is a thousand years older than the MT! (Amazing!), and it reads, “it will call” or “he will call” again referring to the “house of David”; see BHS textual apparatus. The MT attempt to render this text “she will call” (being refuted by Mat. 1:23!) קָרָאת* is incorrect, and so also “you^f will call: 2fs” קָרָאת cf. NET Bible. No virgin was present at the meeting. The * form is a virtual hapax of archaic termination in the MT as 3fs, and most rare. There are other places, Deut. 31:29 (and here the Samaritan Pentateuch disagrees with the MT, cf. BHS), Jer. 44:23. The original reading predicts the “house of David” (you^m, they, it) “will call his name Immanuel.” And this is confirmed by Matthew 1:23, but they listen not.

 a. On many fronts, the Church and Synagogue, those institutions that people trust to tell them the word, have failed. One needs but open a typical commentary to see the liberal acids eating into their pages. Why has this happened? Men would rather trust men than their own eyes, and scholars the logic of institutions rather than their own common sense. And from the moment the Church decided that the Torah and Prophets were merely a figurative object lesson, they ceased to live by it, and ceased to take interest in crossing the t and dotting the i. And from the moment the Synagogue decided that Yeshua was not the Messiah, the Torah and Prophets ceased to be a Messianic Promise for them. And this left an opening for the liars and cheats who changed texts and mistranslated passages cutting off access to the kingdom in their path of destruction. It is therefore necessary to earnestly seek Yahweh with integrity of action and intellect, because the equation of non-seekers + deceivers = disaster. Only a few deceivers are needed and a lot of non-seekers. Therefore, seek and you will find; ask, and it will be given to you. For Yahweh wants to deliver you.

15 Curd and honey he¹ will eat. For he knows refusal of the evil and choice of the good².

(MISB: Isa. 7:15): http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/isaiah.html#7:15

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 1. “Curd and honey” represents several things here. First it is shown later in the prophecy that curd (milk, butter) will be a chief food because hard times will push Israel into animal husbandry. The hard times will also make the fields turn to weeds, and hence the flowers will increase the production of bees. So men will be compelled to this diet. On the other hand, “curd and honey” is the same as “milk and honey” and bespeaks of a very fertile and prosperous land. So what does it mean? First Messiah ate curds and honey under the oppression of the Romans, and then when he restores the prosperity of the kingdom, he will eat curds and honey again.

 2. These words remind us of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”. For Immanuel עִמָּנוּ אֵל (G-d with us) knows good and evil because he is the Holy One of Israel. The text is mistranslated to make it seem that Immanuel does not know the difference between good and evil. The literal Hebrew is, “Butter and honey he will eat; for knowing he refusal in the evil and choice of the good.” The Stone Edition Tenach adds the words, “as soon as” to the text. These words do not belong. The NAS adds the words “at the time ... enough”. These words do not belong. The KJV reads “that he may”. These words do not belong either. The Hebrew word is לְדַעְתּוֹ, and can be properly rendered “as knows he”, or “for knows he”, or “in respect to knowing he”. Verse 16 should not be used to reinterpret the text, because in vs. 16 the subject has switched to Isaiah’s son Shear Yashuv, who is to be made the immediate sign to Ahaz. The Rabbis will exploit every mistake and will leave them uncorrected whenever it is to their advantage.

16 But before, the lad¹ knows refusal of the evil and choice of the good, the land will be forsaken from the faces of her two kings which you dread.

(MISB: Isa. 7:16): http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/isaiah.html#7:16

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 1. As is often the case in Prophecy, and especially Messianic Prophecy, the person being referred to suddenly changes. Isaiah has been told to bring his son שְׁאָר יָשׁוּב to the meeting with Ahaz. The purpose of bringing the lad was because he was to be part of the prophecy. So at this point in the prophetic word we can imagine Isaiah, who is speaking to Ahaz, looking to his side, and nodding at his son She’ar-Yashuv as he utters these words. One clue that the narrative has come back to the local situation is Isaiah’s reference to Ahaz and his enemies, “her two kings which you dread”; a second clue is that “Immanuel...knows refusal of the evil and choice of the good.,” but Isaiah’s son is shown as not knowing the difference between ‘good and evil’. Shear-Yashuv (a remnant will return) stands for those of Israel who will be saved. But Immanuel stands for the Saviour; for he is “G-d with us”.

(MISB: Isa. 8:8): http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/isaiah.html#8:8

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 1. The Father is addressing the Son here before his birth, much like Psalm 110:1. The Land was indeed, “Immanuel’s” as the text says, “your land, Immanuel”. At this point in time “Immanuel” is the “Angel of Yahweh”, who is in fact “Yahweh” himself (cf. Gen. 19:24; 16:7, 13!; 18:1; Judges 13:3, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 13:22!, 13:23!)

30 “Then this for you shall be the signº:ⁿ eat the yearª of volunteer crop¹, and in the second year of aftergrowth², and in the third year sow ye, reap ye, and plant ye vineyards, and eat ye their fruit.

(MISB: Isa. 37:30): http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/isaiah.html#37:30

http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html

 o. What is the “sign” value of this text? It is thus after the siege of Sennacherib in the 14th year of Hezekiah (Isa. 36:1), wherein he had plundered all the crops, that in the 15th year of Hezekiah they will eat the after growth, and in the 16th year also. And these are the Sabbatical and Jubilee year. And the remnant will survive on the after-crops of those two years. Now the Sabbath year itself is a sign, and so also the Jubilee. They are chronological signposts on the road of time. For by them we can discover when the Jubilee year should be. George Smith, who broke the code of the Assyrian tablets says the siege of Samaria ended in 720 B.C. (pg. 174-175, The Assyrian Eponym Canon). This was in the 6th year of Hezekiah, and the 9th year of Hoshea (2Kings 18:9-10). So year 6 = 720 BC. Accordingly, year 16 = 710 BC, and 710/709 BC (Tishri-Tishri) is the Jubilee year. This makes the next Jubilee 2035/2036 AD (Tishri-Tishri). This calculation really does not depend on the Assyrian record, but I thought I’d make it easy for them. See next note for rebuttal of Edwin Thiele’s corrupt chronology.

 n. Before Edwin Thiele came along and wrecked Scriptural Chronology, Willis Judson Beecher had nearly right. See The Dated Events of the Old Testament. Thiele was a Seventh Day Adventist who liberalized chronology by suggesting that the successors of George Smith should be believed, who redacted the siege of Hezekiah’s 14th year to 701 BC. In order to do this Thiele had to dismiss 2Kings 18:9-10 from the Scripture. Thiele says of 2Ki 18:9-10, “These synchronisms came into being because the final editor of Kings did not understand dual dating for Pekah” (pg. 174, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings). Dual dating for Pekah, is itself an ad hoc theory, and Thiele would rather have the ad hoc theory and the 701 BC date than believe the Prophet who wrote Second Kings. All modern chronology until Nolen Floyd Jones, has followed Thiele off the cliff of higher criticism—including a good number of Messianic believers who know no better. I have diagrammed the matter in my book: http://www.torahtimes.org/book/page160.pdf

 a. There is no doubt that the text is speaking of a Sabbatical Year here. The NAS and KJV are misleading, “ye shall eat this year such as groweth of itself” (KJV), and “you shall eat this year what grows of itself”; the Stone Edition Tenach is better, “You will eat this year of the after-crop;” But even that is poorly worded! The Hebrew text says, “the year volunteer crop”. Focus on the words, “the year ”. We could render this, “the after-crop year” or “the volunteer crop year”. The definite article is conceptualizing what kind of year we are talking about, and is not saying “this year”. There is no demonstrative pronoun in the text! The Hebrew word lemma סָפִיחַ is also used in Lev. 25:5, 11 in the legislation about the Sabbatical and Jubilee year respectively.

 1. The Hebrew סָפִיחַ literally means “an outpouring”. The idea refers to the spilled grain after a harvest, which in the next year produces a volunteer crop (if the land is not plowed over and replanted). In modern agriculture, the field hand will walk behind the harvesting machine, stoop down, and count the number of grains in a square foot or so to see how much grain the machine is dumping on the ground. If it is too much, the machine needs adjustment. In ancient times there was no way of avoiding spilling grain, and so also in modern agriculture. So grain spilled in the summer preceding a Sabbath year would produce a “volunteer crop” as modern farmers like to call it in English the next spring. And sometimes, even in regular years, where a new crop is planted, corn or other after growth can be seen springing up in the middle of the field.

 2. This Hebrew word is a “metathesis” of סחיש, the first and last sounds being switched. It means after growth. If a volunteer crop is let go for a second year, then it will produce its own after growth crop.