이사야 8:4의 인용 해설

בראשית ברא IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED — This verse calls aloud for explanation in the manner that our Rabbis explained it: God created the world for the sake of the Torah which is called (Proverbs 8:22) “The beginning (ראשית) of His (God’s) way”, and for the sake of Israel who are called (Jeremiah 2:3) “The beginning (ראשית) of His (God’s) increase’’. If, however, you wish to explain it in its plain sense, explain it thus: At the beginning of the Creation of heaven and earth when the earth was without form and void and there was darkness, God said, “Let there be light”. The text does not intend to point out the order of the acts of Creation — to state that these (heaven and earth) were created first; for if it intended to point this out, it should have written 'בראשונה ברא את השמים וגו “At first God created etc.” And for this reason: Because, wherever the word ראשית occurs in Scripture, it is in the construct state. E. g., (Jeremiah 26:1) “In the beginning of (בראשית) the reign of Jehoiakim”; (Genesis 10:10) “The beginning of (ראשית) his kingdom”; (Deuteronomy 18:4) “The first fruit of (ראשית) thy corn.” Similarly here you must translate בראשית ברא אלהים as though it read בראשית ברוא, at the beginning of God’s creating. A similar grammatical construction (of a noun in construct followed by a verb) is: (Hosea 1:2) תחלת דבר ה' בהושע, which is as much as to say, “At the beginning of God’s speaking through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea.” Should you, however, insist that it does actually intend to point out that these (heaven and earth) were created first, and that the meaning is, “At the beginning of everything He created these, admitting therefore that the word בראשית is in the construct state and explaining the omission of a word signifying “everything” by saying that you have texts which are elliptical, omitting a word, as for example (Job 3:10) “Because it shut not up the doors of my mother’s womb” where it does not explicitly explain who it was that closed the womb; and (Isaiah 8:4) “He shall take away the spoil of Samaria” without explaining who shall take it away; and (Amos 6:12) “Doth he plough with oxen," and it does not explicitly state, “Doth a man plough with oxen”; (Isaiah 46:10) “Declaring from the beginning the end,” and it does not explicitly state, “Declaring from the beginning of a thing the end of a thing’ — if it is so (that you assert that this verse intends to point out that heaven and earth were created first), you should be astonished at yourself, because as a matter of fact the waters were created before heaven and earth, for, lo, it is written, (v. 2) “The Spirit of God was hovering on the face of the waters,” and Scripture had not yet disclosed when the creation of the waters took place — consequently you must learn from this that the creation of the waters preceded that of the earth. And a further proof that the heavens and earth were not the first thing created is that the heavens were created from fire (אש) and water (מים), from which it follows that fire and water were in existence before the heavens. Therefore you must admit that the text teaches nothing about the earlier or later sequence of the acts of Creation.

The Lord said to me The prophets have already prophesied (supra 8:4): “The wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.” But he erred, saying (supra 10:11), “Indeed, as I did to Samaria..., so will I do to Jerusalem...”

Therefore the Lord himself etc. Though you do not ask a sign, He will give it you. It is to me a matter of surprise that there are those who say the prophet here refers to Jesus, since the sign was given to Ahaz, and Jesus was born many years afterwards; besides, the prophet says, For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land shall be forsaken; but the countries of Ephraim and Syria were wasted in the sixth year of Hezekiah, and¹⁵The following is added to show that The land shall be forsaken, can only refer to Syria and Israel; both kingdoms were successively conquered by Assyria in the time of Ahaz and Hezekiah. it is distinctly said of whose two kings, etc. Many make the mistake of identifying Immanuel with Hezekiah; they cannot be the same, granting even this prophecy to have been uttered at the beginning of the reign of Ahaz; he reigned only sixteen years, and Hezekiah was at the death of Ahaz twenty-five years old. According to others, Immanuel is another son of Ahaz, and others again take the names (Immanuel, Maher Shalal and Shear Yashub) as symbolical of the kingdom; but if so, what meaning would be in the child’s knowing good and evil and in Maher Shalal calling father and mother? (8:4). I think that Immanuel is the son of Isaiah, as well as Maher Shalal; the latter is proved by And I went unto the prophetess, etc. (8:3). Shear Yashub is similarly related to the prophet (ver. 3); each of the three sons received a name that contained some hint at future events; Immanuel implied that God would help them and be with them during the troubles caused by the two kings; Maher Shalal, that the time for the exile of Samaria had arrived; and Shear Yashub, that the remnant of Israel would repent; this explanation is well borne out by the words, Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me, are for signs and for wonders. Comp. The children which the Lord hath graciously given to thy servant (Gen. 33:5).¹⁶This quotation is to prove that the words, the children which the Lord has given me refer to the true children of the prophet, not to pupils, and that they are not used in any other figurative sense. Those that in the former passage regard children as equivalent to pupils must produce us some analogy from Scripture.¹⁷It is hardly necessary to refer to the great many instances, where the listener or reader is addressed as My son, but Ibn Ezra speaks of the whole phrase, children whom the Lord hath given me, and to take that in a figurative sense is not possible without some analogous examples. Isaiah himself was a sign and an example concerning Egypt (20:3).—The Gaon says that the sign consisted in the child being a male child;¹⁸This was foretold by the prophet (ver. 14). but in my opinion the sign was that the child was to eat butter and honey; for it is not usual that children eat these things immediately after their birth.¹⁹If this be the right explanation, the most important point in the sign is omitted from the text, namely, that the child will eat those things immediately after its birth.