Thursday 11 October 2007

Background

At the time these verses refer to, the Assyrians had begun tothreaten the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with invasion - they hadalready swallowed up several other territories. This is a timesomewhat earlier that the incidents described in the passages from2 Kings that featured earlier this week.

King Ahaz of Judah thought that the best plan was to seek analliance with Assyria, but the rulers of Israel (also calledEphraim) and Syria (also called Aram) saw this as treachery and soplanned to depose Ahaz in order to install an anti-Assyrian puppetking in Judah to strengthen their resistance.

Isaiah found himself caught between his loyalty to Judah and hisconcern for Israel, because this northern kingdom was alsohistorically part of God's 'chosen' people. Now he is given thetask of taking a message of reassurance to Ahaz that God will notallow the coalition of Syria and Israel to defeat Judah.

It is significant that Isaiah is told to take his son with him,because the name of the son, Shear-jashub, has a special meaningwhich is 'a remnant shall return'. However, we can interpret thisin two, almost opposite ways!

The positive interpretation is that, even if the kingdom eventuallyfalls, a remnant of the people will one day return to rebuild theland. Subsequent history would seem to vindicate this view.

However the name could be seen as an omen of warning, only aremnant shall return - disaster looms and very few will survive!Similarly, the words of verse 9 contain both threat andpromise.

To Ponder

What are the situations in which you aremotivated by a threat? Which is the better way to persuade peopleto act in certain ways, the 'carrot' or the 'stick', or a bit ofboth?

Do you think of God acting in this way? In whatcircumstances?