Royal Names: Naming And Wordplay In Isaiah 7

By Greg Goswell

[Greg Goswell is Lecturer in Biblical Studies (Old Testament) at Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney, an affiliated college of the Australian College of Theology.]

In the prophecy of Isaiah, the naming of characters and wordplay based on their names are an important vehicle for the message of the book. The thesis of this article is that wordplay is a significant feature of Isa 7 and an important clue to the meaning and intention of the chapter. The message of Isa 7 is largely conveyed by the naming of characters, including Ahaz himself. All this provides a context for a proper understanding of the Immanuel prophecy. I seek to demonstrate that this entails a negative meaning for the name Immanuel with respect to the Davidic line (the prospect of a disruption to the regular succession of Judahite kings) and a positive meaning for the faithful remnant of Judah (represented by the prophet Isaiah himself).

I. Wordplay In Isaiah 36–39

Three prominent examples of Isaianic wordplay are the use made of the names of Sennacherib, Hezekiah, and Isaiah’s own name in Isa 36–39. Hezekiah reports to Isaiah that Sennacherib (through his emissary) has “mocked” (חרף) the living God (37:4; 37:17). As noted by Moshe Garsiel, this is the first of a series of wordplays on the name of Sennacherib (סנחריב), where the name of Israel’s foe is exploited to suggest a correlation with his actions and his fate.[1] The correlation is not mere cleverness or literary embellishment, but serves the serious purpose of confirming the justice of Hezekiah’s scathing evaluation of Sennacherib’s words. Again using wordplay, Isaiah predicts that Sennacherib will fall “by the sword” (37:7) (חרב), and it is later recorded that two of his sons “slew him with the sword” (37:38) (חרב). The word used for Sennacherib’s crime (חרף) resembles God’s instrument of punishment (חרב), and both are what Garsiel calls “midrashic name derivations” (MND) from Sennacherib (סנחריב).[2] As noted by Garsiel, the correspondences between names and events strengthen the reader’s sense that the plot development is not accidental.[3] This is usually done subtly, for the biblical author does not customarily refer to the wordplay or connotation of the name given to a character in any overt fashion, but leaves the suggestions to work subliminally on the reader’s consciousness.

In the context of Hezekiah’s life-threatening illness, the words “and he recovered” (ויחזק 39:1b), or “but then [he] was strong again,”[4] are a play on Hezekiah’s own name (חזקיהו).[5] The BHS editor (D. W. Thomas) notes the alternate 1QIsaa reading ויחיה , which is what might be expected after the frequent use of the root חיה in Isa 38 (vv. 1, 9, 11, 12, 16 [x3], 19 [x2], 20, 21), so that its non-use in the MT is striking. Further, Isa 39:1 is the only listing in BDB (p. 304) for Qal חזק used for recovery from illness, suggesting that it is indeed chosen with the view to enabling a significant play on words. Hezekiah’s name fits his (in this case positive) fate, so that the name bears significant meaning for Hezekiah the name-bearer.[6]

In 37:35, YHWH (through Isaiah) explains his motivation for the dramatic turn of affairs that is about to be described: God will act to save (להושיעה) the city of Jerusalem from the king of Assyria. This is in response to the petition of Hezekiah for God to save them, as the terminological connection indicates (37:20 הושיענו). As noted by Garsiel, this connects with Isaiah’s own name (ישעיהו = The LORD saves) and amounts to a significant wordplay on the prophet’s name.[7] There is a series of three climactic verses in the narrative of Isa 36–39 that feature the root (37:20, 35; 38:20). The wordplay in two cases is highlighted by the mention of the prophet’s name in the verse immediately following the use of “save” (37:21; 38:21). In the third case, the prophet is made the mouthpiece of a message that fits his name (37:35).

Since Ackroyd’s 1982 study it has become common to draw attention to the parallels between Isa 36–39 and Isa 7.[8] This suggests the possibility that naming and puns on names may also play a role in Isa 7. Garsiel has shown that the MND is an important literary tool, even “a central pillar in the structure of biblical poetics,” so that the MND is a deliberate device and is used for a serious literary purpose.[9]

II. The Theme Of Kingship In Isaiah 7

There is a cluster of references to kings in Isa 7:1–17, suggesting that its main theme is that of kingship. More than that, there is a veritable cast of named kings: Uzziah (7:1), Jotham (7:1), Ahaz (7:1, 3, 10, 12), Pekah (7:1, and in 7:4, 5, 9 under the patronym “the son of Remaliah”), Rezin (7:1, 4, 8), and David (7:2, 13). In addition to this, there are references to Ahaz under the appellation “the house of David” (7:2, 13) (see below), to Pekah and Rezin as “both of her kings” (7:16), and to an unnamed “king of Assyria” (7:17). Lastly, there is “the son of Tabeel,” whom Aram and Ephraim wanted to set up as a king replacing Ahaz (7:6). The only chapter or cluster of chapters in the prophecy of Isaiah that comes close to featuring so many named kings (Judahite and foreign) is Isa 36–39.[10]

The chapter’s opening chronological notice features an exceptional use of the grandfather’s name in the patronym: “in the days of Ahaz, son of Jotham, son of Uzziah” (7:1a).[11] This serves to recall the Davidic succession of which Ahaz is the present incumbent. So too, the mention of Uzziah, who has died (6:1: “In the year that King Uzziah died”), and of Jotham, who has been sidelined during the final years of his life and effectively replaced by Ahaz in a co-regency (2 Kgs 15:37; 16:5), suggests the possibility that Ahaz also may soon be dead (or deposed), and Ahaz’s death is later noted (14:28: “In the year that King Ahaz died came this oracle”). Isaiah 38 describes the life-threatening illness of Hezekiah, and the last recorded words of Hezekiah anticipate his death (39:8b: “There will be peace and security in my days”). It might be said, therefore, that notices of the deaths of kings punctuate the first half of the book of Isaiah. This suggests that in God’s long-term plan for his people the Davidic line of kings may fail or, at the very least, that there will be a serious disruption of Davidic rule over Judah. My analysis of the theme of kingship in Isa 7 will confirm this supposition.

III. The Threatened King

The chapter commences with a description of a failed attack on Jerusalem (7:1).[12] The events recorded in 7:1 chronologically follow Isaiah’s actions and words in 7:2–17, for in vv. 2–17 the threatened attack has not yet begun (in v. 3 Ahaz is checking the city water supply in anticipation of a siege). The prolepsis (v. 1) has the effect of confirming the prophet’s assurances to Ahaz, showing how unnecessary are the king’s fears, and by so doing contributes to his negative portrayal.[13] The reader sees the events of vv. 2–17 from an informed vantage point: from the outset the revelation of the failure of the threatened attack (“but they could not conquer it”) shows the reader that Ahaz’s anxious preparations are unnecessary.

The mode of expression, “When the house of David was told” (v. 2a), indicates that a threat is posed to the Davidic succession, and this is confirmed by the revelation of the foreign coalition’s plan to replace Ahaz with a puppet king, “the son of Tabeel” (v. 6). There is irony at work in such an appellation (“the house of David”), for Ahaz’s response of fear hardly suits a descendant of David. The frightening news is that “Aram has settled down [נוח] upon Ephraim” (v. 2a) (BDB 628), namely, that Aram has imposed its will upon the Northern Kingdom and forced it to join an anti-Judahite league. The unusual use of this word may be with a view to a play on words with the verb “to shake” (v. 2b נוע), the second action being a response to the first.[14] On hearing the news, “his heart and the heart of his people shook,” the two pronouns clearly referring to Ahaz (as a representative of the Davidic house). The designation “his people” does not refer to the people of Judah generally but has the restricted sense of supporters of Ahaz’s kingship, whether his kinsfolk, close advisors, or entourage (DCH 6:431), that is, the royal household (which is what “the house of David” means in Isa 22:22 and Jer 21:11, 12).[15] The focus is upon the fate of the dynasty rather than the fortunes of the nation. In contrast to this use of “people” (but not contradicting the interpretation being offered), in a closely related passage (Isa 8:5–8), the designation “this people” expresses a reprimand by the prophet of the people of Judah as a whole, who appear to favor (8:6 MT “rejoice in”) Rezin and the son of Remaliah and their anti- Assyrian policy,[16] and who, therefore, corporately bear some responsibility for the coming devastation of land at the hands of the king of Assyria. Isaiah 7:1–17 focuses on the dynastic implications of the Syro-Ephraimite crisis, whereas Isa 8 takes a broader national view.

In this context, the name of Ahaz (אחז) is highly appropriate, for the derivation of his name correlates with his character, behavior, and possible fate.[17] The name is a hypocoristic shortening of Jehoahaz (יהואחז) (= the Lord has taken hold [by the hand]), being a metaphor for God’s protection and support (cf. Ps 73:23), but Ahaz fails to find repose in God’s protection. As recently as 5:29, the unidentified foreign nation summoned by God to punish Judah has been likened to lions that “growl and seize [אחז] their prey,” so that Ahaz’s name alludes to the threat he faces of falling into the hands of formidable foreign aggressors. So too, this Hebrew root (אחז) is repeatedly used in the prophecy of Isaiah for being seized by pain, sorrow, or fear, often as a woman in childbirth (13:8; 21:3; 33:14),[18] so that Ahaz’s name also alludes to his response of fear in the face of the military threat (v. 4),[19] a response described using the graphic image of shaking trees (v. 2b). In the person of Ahaz, therefore, are found correspondences between his name and events in the plot: Ahaz’s name anticipates the major crisis that he will face; it serves as an indication of the true source of protection in this crisis (namely, promised divine support), but it exposes his weakness in the moment of crisis, for he is seized with fear.

IV. Shear-jashub

YHWH instructs Isaiah to take with him his son with the sign-name “Shear-jashub,” which in itself is a message to the king (v. 3). Isaiah’s remnant theology is on display in his son’s name. The name seems to mean, “only [at least] a remnant will [re]turn” (given the order of elements: subject-predicate, which places emphasis on the subject).[20] The name has several possible alternative interpretations. Given the fact that the OT concept of a remnant often refers to survivors of a military conflict (e.g., Amos 3:12; 4:11; 5:3; 6:9; Isa 17:3), the child’s name can be taken as an assurance to Ahaz that he has nothing to fear from the foreign alliance: only a remnant of the armies of Aram and Israel will return home (cf. Isa 10:20–22).[21] The sign-name of Isaiah’s other child would support this interpretation (8:3, 4), for the name signifies the despoliation of the capitals of Aram and Israel as a result of military defeat. On the other hand, the name Shear-jashub could have a positive theological implication (as 10:20, 21 bring out): at least a remnant will turn to God in faith, and Ahaz is invited to be part of that faithful remnant and to put his trust in God in this time of political crisis.[22] There is, then, the ambiguity of “[re]turn” (שוב) as a physical return or as a spiritual turning (repentance) (שוב is used in 6:10 in a religious sense). On either interpretation, the sign-name has a positive meaning for Ahaz until he shows himself to be an unbeliever.

V. The Threatening Foreign Kings

From the expressed intention of the coalition contained in the quote in 7:6 it appears that it is not the future of the nation so much as the survival of the Davidic dynasty that is at stake, the main aim of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition being to replace the Davidic Ahaz with a puppet king.[23] The focus of the narrative is the specifically Davidic nature of kingship and its possible demise. In contrast to 2 Kgs 16, an appeal by Ahaz to Assyria receives no mention in the Isaiah narrative, so that the dynastic implications of the foreign threat are allowed to predominate.[24]

What can be described as a negative attitude is taken toward all the kings mentioned within the chapter. What the prophet thinks of the planned substitution of “the son of Tabeel [טבָאְַל]” on the throne is in part made clear by the name that he puts on the lips of the enemies (v. 6). The LXX renders it Ταβεηλ, which corresponds to an acceptable Hebrew name טבָאְֵל (meaning “God is good”), which in Ezra 4:7 is the name of a Persian official. The pretender’s name (whatever its original form) in the MT means “good for nothing” (BDB 370), so that the name contains a slur.[25] This is an example of the deliberate distortion of a foreign name for the purpose of mockery. If the Masoretic vocalization reflects the view of the prophet, Isaiah does not favor the foreign coalition’s plan to substitute leaders. Something similar is found later in Isa 39, with the naming of the Babylonian king (39:1). “Merodach” represents the Akkadian name Marduk. There is the likelihood of pejorative Hebrew vocalization of the name, imitating the vowels of מְאֹרָר (“cursed be”),[26] which would prejudice the reader against viewing the apparently beneficent action of the Babylonian king in a favorable light.[27] The distortion of a name is an authorial mechanism for manipulating the reader’s attitude toward a named character in the narrative.

The repeated naming of Pekah (v. 1) only by the patronym “the son of Remaliah” (vv. 4, 5, 9; 8:6) is also a pejorative, and the same applies to the designation “the son of Tabeel.”[28] The fact that Rezin the foreign king is routinely mentioned before Pekah the Israelite king (vv. 1, 4, 8, 9) in effect demotes Pekah to the status of the junior partner in their joint action against Judah.[29] In v. 16, the expression “both of her [= Israel’s] kings” (שני מלכיה) may imply that Rezin was really the co-king of Samaria with Pekah,[30] so that this can be read as a further denigration of Pekah. The reference to the “fierce anger” of the two foreign kings is followed by a “sarcastic explanation of the allusion,”[31] with YHWH describing them, employing metaphorical language, as “two stumps of these smoking firebrands,” implying that, however menacing they now seem to be, both will soon sputter out (v. 4; cf. Amos 4:11; Zech 3:2).[32] In addition, the use of the demonstrative adjective “these” (אלה) in that expression could possibly be pejorative.[33]

The name “Rezin” (רצין) almost certainly conceals the form רצון (“goodwill, favor”; LXX Ραασσων [BDB 954]; 1 Kgs 11:23 רזון), this vocalization of the name being avoided because of its favorable overtones (vv. 4, 8; cf. 8:6).[34] There is also a probable pun of his name (involving a transposition of the consonants) with the word “adversary” (צר). This suggestion is supported by the wordplay found later in the MT of 9:11 (HB 10): “the adversaries of Rezin” (צרי רצין).[35] The word association helps to typecast Rezin as a vicious enemy. Furthermore, it is discourteous of Isaiah to use a king’s name (“Rezin”) without his royal title (cf. v. 1 above). Likewise, the Assyrian spokesman’s mode of address to Hezekiah in 36:4 (“Say to Hezekiah”) and references to him by name only (36:14, 16: “Do not let Hezekiah deceive you . . . Do not listen to Hezekiah”) shows disrespect by not giving Hezekiah any title.[36] In summary, therefore, the narrator has not a good word to say about any of these non-Judean kings.

VI. The House Of David

The repeated speech attribution, “Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz” and the reference to Ahaz by name rather than by a pronominal suffix (“to him”) indicate a break at v. 10, though there is no need to posit a change of time or place.[37] Verses 10–17 are a second stage in the encounter between Isaiah and Ahaz (presumably after the king has failed to respond to what is said to him in v. 9b). In referring to “your [= Ahaz’s] God,” Isaiah gives Ahaz the benefit of the doubt that he will trust in God’s promise (v. 11). The offered “sign” in v. 11 is obvious hyperbole: ask for any sign at all, be it ever so difficult. The redundant use of Ahaz’s name in verse 12a (“But Ahaz said, . . .”) probably implies the narrator’s disapproval of him, highlighting the importance of his response as well as giving a negative assessment of what Ahaz said.[38] Ahaz masks his refusal to ask for a sign behind a facade of piety: it is wrong to test God (Deut 6:16)—unless of course God invites us to test him (v. 12). Hypocritical Ahaz does not want a sign because he has no intention of believing.

Isaiah uses the “house of David” plural address in v. 13, though responding to what Ahaz has said (v. 12) (the designation already used by the narrator in v. 2a). Throughout the chapter, there is alternation between the singular address to Ahaz (vv. 4, 5a, 11, 16b, 17a) and the plural address to the Davidic house (vv. 9b, 13, 14a). This is explained by Ahaz’s character as the representative of the royal house.[39] Ahaz is more than an individual, he is a symbol of the Davidic dynasty.[40] The primary concern of the narrative is the fate of the house of David, not merely the personal survival of the individual figure of Ahaz, and the chapter gives no flattering view of Judahite kingship.[41] In line with this interest, 7:9b (“If you will not believe [תאמינו], surely you shall not be established [תאמנו]”) alludes to the use of this significant Hebrew root in the dynastic promise by YHWH to David in 2 Sam 7:16 (“before me, your house and your kingdom will be made sure [ונאמן] forever”).[42] This prophetic reformulation of the earlier text, however, turns the positive dynastic promise into a negative condition.[43] Verse 9b contains the famous wordplay using the Hiphil and Niphal forms of the root אמן that might be rendered: “unless you hold firm (to God), surely you will not be made firm (in this moment of crisis).” The wordplay has the serious purpose of underlining the close connection of act and consequence in the thinking of the prophet. The use of plural verb forms indicates that Ahaz is deciding for the royal house, and the conditional sentence of v. 9b is a warning to the royal court that the dynastic promise may be forfeited.[44]

VII. Immanuel

Given the repeated use of wordplay in Isa 7, the sign-name of the predicted child “Immanuel” (עמנו אל) is possibly paronomasia with the preceding use of the root אמן (v. 9b), and this forges a link between the theophoric name of the child and the Davidic tradition. It can, therefore, be viewed as an echo of the promise that God will be “with” David and his offspring (2 Sam 7:9 [עמך]; 1 Kgs 1:37; 11:38; Ps 89:24 [HB 25]). Due to the dynastic promise, YHWH was “with” the Davidic kings in a special way. Given the persistent play on names in Isa 7, the name “Immanuel” is to be seen as the main point of the proffered sign.[45] This is the case, whether “with us” is viewed as inclusive in meaning (“God [is] with us [all]”) or (more likely in context) as exclusive in force (“God [is] with us [who have faith, and not with you]”).

Many scholars read the name as having a positive connotation (as it plainly does in 8:10),[46] but as noted by Wegner, a negative connotation is likely for at least three reasons: (1) Ahaz’s demonstrated lack of faith (v. 12); (2) the introductory word לכן (“therefore”) (v. 14a) often, but not exclusively, introduces a pronouncement of judgment;[47] (3) Isa 8:8 uses “Immanuel” in what is a judgment context (8:5–8).[48] I add to this: (4) the ominous switch from “your God” (v. 11) to “my God” (v. 13), indicating that Isaiah views Ahaz as outside the circle of faith;[49] (5) the conditional character of v. 9b is to be recalled (and Ahaz has not fulfilled the condition);[50] (6) the harsh language of v. 13; and (7) the giving of a sign to the house of David (לכם “to you” [2d masculine plural]), whose representative made it clear that he did not want to receive a sign, indicates that there is an element (at least) of judgment in the given name. The ambivalent nature of the sign may mean that the Davidic house still has a future,[51] but, more likely (according to Williamson) it expresses that “God’s commitment to his people overrides a specific concern for any particular historical dynasty.”[52] In the Bible, the language of God being “with him/you/ us” is by no means limited to the Davidic house.[53] The sign-name indicates that God will be with the faithful remnant (represented by Isaiah) but will not be with the Davidic dynasty.

One of a number of connections between Isa 7 and Isa 36–39 is that Ahaz and Hezekiah are both offered a sign (אות) as confirmation of YHWH’s word (7:11; 37:30; 38:7). The related passages have, however, both similarities and differences,[54] and one of the differences is Hezekiah’s acceptance of and even request for a sign (38:22) in marked contrast to Ahaz’s refusal (7:12). In Isa 37 and 38, the signs given through Isaiah to Hezekiah have a positive import, but the difference in the portrayal of the characters of the two kings makes it hardly surprising that the sign of “Immanuel” offered to Ahaz in Isa 7 ends up having a negative import.

Scholars debate the import of the Immanuel sign: whether salvation or disaster. They also disagree over precisely in what the sign consists: whether the child’s birth from העלמה , his name, his diet, or a combination of these.[55] I have argued above that it is the child’s name that is the key. The word בתולה is used some fifty times in the OT, but the less common word עלמה may have been chosen in preference to it because of a play on words with “as high as the heights” (v. 11b למעלה). There is also a euphonic pun in the same context involving the words “ask” (שְׁאלַ) (vv. 11a, 12a) and “Sheol” (שְׁאלָהָ) (v. 11b).[56] The non-standard contrast with the usual spelling of the noun “Sheol” in the MT (usually שְׁאוֹל or שְׁאֹל) makes the play on words more obvious.[57] Despite the presence of named sons of Isaiah in the immediate vicinity of this verse (cf. 7:3; 8:3), there is no positive indication in the text that the woman in question was the prophet’s wife.[58] The suggestion is often made that v. 14 refers to a wife of the king and that the child is Hezekiah,[59] but suffice it to say there is no firm evidence that the child is a royal prince.[60] A connection of “Immanuel” with the fate of the royal house does not require that the עלמה be one of the king’s wives or the child a Davidic prince. Wegner admits as much: “The identity of the child and mother is difficult to determine and does not appear to be a question which the text was intended to answer.”[61]

In v. 17, the reference to “your [= Ahaz’s] father’s house” picks up the phrase “[the] house of David” (v. 13) and shows that the future of the dynasty is indeed in view. The entire dynasty is threatened, so that God’s concern for his people is not irrevocably tied to any dynasty. Verse 17a is to be read as having an implicit ellipse: “[Since you refuse this promise] the Lord will bring upon you . . .” It seems clear that the Davidic dynasty is the focus of judgment, for the time reference, “since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah,” indicates that evils will come as on the fateful day that the united kingdom of Solomon split and Davidic rule was significantly weakened (1 Kgs 12). What is often viewed as a sudden switch from judgment on enemies (v. 16) to judgment on the Davidic house (v. 17) is understandable, for it reflects prominent features of 7:1–17: the prophet’s antipathy toward the threatening foreign kings, his disapproval of Ahaz, and the ambivalent nature of the sign-names Shear-jashub and Immanuel.

VIII. Conclusion

Set in the reign of Ahaz, Isa 7:1–17 explores the issue of whether Davidic kingship has a future in Judah. The focus on kingship is indicated by the plethora of royal figures (domestic and foreign) that fill the narrative. Through the use of naming and wordplay largely based on royal names, and the assigning of ironic and pejorative designations to the different royal figures, a negative attitude is taken toward the kings mentioned within the chapter, including Ahaz. The “house of David” (represented by Ahaz) fails to respond properly in the national crisis. A connection of “Immanuel” with the fate of the Davidic house does not require that the promised child be a Davidic prince. The sign-name indicates that God will judge the house of David, but that he will be with the faithful remnant (represented by Isaiah). There is a future for a purified remnant but no guaranteed future for the Davidic line. The “messianic” passages in Isa 9 and 11 do not rule out this interpretation, for they can be understood as depicting the provision of an eschatological Davidic ruler after a severe disruption of the regular succession of Davidic kings (see 9:1 [HB 8:23]; 10:33, 34). The reuse of the Immanuel prophecy by Matthew (Matt 1:18–25) indicates that the birth of Jesus (“the king of the Jews”) represents a revival of the fortunes of the judged house of David.

Notes

1. Moshe Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns (trans. Phyllis Hackett; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991), 46, 47.
2. Ibid., 46, 47. There is an easy interchange of the letters ב and פ as the two labials in the Hebrew alphabet.
3. Moshe Garsiel, “Homiletic Name-Derivations as a Literary Device in the Gideon Narrative: Judges VI–VIII,” VT 43 (1993): 317. Garsiel draws similar conclusions in another study, “Puns upon Names as a Literary Device in 1 Kings 1-2,” Bib 72 (1991): 385, 386.
4. The rendering of J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66 (WBC 25; Waco: Word, 1987), 63 (the addition [he] is mine).
5. Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995), 93, sees it as a pun on Hezekiah and notes (what he views as) earlier puns on his name at 8:11; 27:5; 35:3-4 (p. 89).
6. Garsiel, Biblical Names, 41: “The biblical writers wish to find within the structure of the name some clue to the person’s course of life.”
7. Ibid., 25, 26.
8. P. R. Ackroyd, “Isaiah 36-39: Structure and Function,” in Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift fur Prof. Mag. Dr. J. P. M. van der Ploeg O. P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979 (ed. W. C. Delsman et al.; AOAT 211; Kevelaer: Butzon & Becker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 3-21.
9. Garsiel, Biblical Names, 26. Valerie Kabergs and Hans Ausloos also insist on the serious intent of Hebrew wordplay; see “Paronomasia or Wordplay? A Babel-Like Confusion: Towards a Definition of Hebrew Wordplay,” Bib 93 (2012): 11.
10. For brief surveys of the use of the root מלך in the book of Isaiah, see Richard Schultz, “The King in the Book of Isaiah,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (ed. P. E. Satterthwaite et al.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 148; and H. G. M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 3, 4.
11. Another example is found in 2 Kgs 14:13.
12. Cf. 2 Kgs 16:5, which singles out Ahaz personally as the specific object of the siege (“and they besieged Ahaz but could not conquer him”). I do not assume the textual priority of either Isa 7 or 2 Kgs 16, but make intertextual comparisons and contrasts (see K. Budde, “Isaiah vii.1 and 2 Kings xvi.5,” ExpTim 11 [1899/1900]: 327-30).
13. Cf. S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis (SBLDS 123; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 137; also P. R. Ackroyd, “The Biblical Interpretation of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah,” in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestine Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlstrom (ed. W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer; JSOTSup 31; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 248, 250; P. R. Ackroyd, “Historians and Prophets,” SEA 33 (1968): 24, 27, 28. Ackroyd sees notable differences between Isa 7 and 2 Kgs 16 as reinforcing the impression in the present text of entirely unnecessary panic.
14. This is viewed as a possibility by John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 192 n. 1.
15. Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1-39 (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1993), 68, 69; Irvine, Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis, 140; John Walton, “Isa 7:14: What’s in a Name?,” JETS 30 (1987): 290. The same evaluation applies to “your [Ahaz’s] people” in v. 17 below.
16. Irvine, Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis, 185-91.
17. For a demonstration by Moshe Garsiel of how a chain of puns based on names contributes to the characterization of the main characters of the Book of Samuel and to the evaluation of their actions, see “Word Play and Puns as a Rhetorical Device in the Book of Samuel,” in Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature (ed. Scott B. Noegel; Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2000), 181-204.
18. See Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God (Literary Currents in Biblical Tradition; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 102, 103.
19. The root זאח is also found in association with exhortations to “fear not”; see D. J. McCarthy, “An Installation Genre?,” JBL 90 (1971): 31-41.
20. Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 296; Sheldon H. Blank, “The Current Misinterpretation of Isaiah’s She’ar Yashub,” JBL 67 (1948): 213; Sheldon H. Blank, “Traces of Prophetic Agony in Isaiah,” HUCA 27 (1956): 87, 88; Gerhard Hasel, “Linguistic Considerations Regarding the Translation of Isaiah’s Shear-Jashub: A Reassessment,” AUSS 9 (1971): 36-46; Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1-39 (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 65.
21. R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1-39 (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 83; Jesper Hogenhaven, “Die symbolischen Namen in Jesaja 7 und 8 im Rahmen der sogenannten ‘Denkschrift’ des Propheten,” in Le livre d’Isaie: Les oracles et leur relectures; Unite et complexite de l’ouvrage (ed. J. Vermeylen; BETL 81; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1989), 233; John Day, “Shear-Jashub (Isaiah vii 3) and ‘The Remnant of Wrath’ (Psalm lxxvi 11),” VT 31 (1981): 76-78; J. J. M. Roberts, “The Context, Text, and Logic of Isaiah 7.7-9,” in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon (ed. John Kaltner and Louis Stulman; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 163. For the sense of “return (from battle),” see 1 Kgs 22:28; Jer 22:10 (references provided by Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12, 296).
22. E.g., Gerhard Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1974), 285-87.
23. Cf. Klaus Seybold, Das davidische Konigtum im Zeugnis der Propheten (FRLANT 107; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 67.
24. Williamson, Variations on a Theme, 105.
25. J. Andrew Dearman, “The Son of Tabeel (Isaiah 7:6),” in Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (ed. Stephen Breck Reid; JSOTSup 229; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 36 n. 10, 43, 44. Dearman provides a recent survey of scholarly discussion about the identity of this enigmatic figure. For the use of names in poking fun at personages in the Bible, see Yehuda T. Radday, “Humour in Names,” in On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible (ed. Yehuda T. Radday and Athalya Brenner; JSOTSup 23; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990), 58-97.
26. In a short note G. Rinaldi (“Nota,” BeO 16 [1974]: 138) comments on the form of the name “Merodach” in Jer 50:2.
27. The practice is in fact widespread in biblical narrative; see B. J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions: The Hebrew Text in Transmission and the History of the Ancient Versions (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951), 17, for other examples of the similar treatment of proper names containing the names of pagan deities.
28. BDB 942; Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12, 300. Another example is Saul calling David “the son of Jesse” in 1 Sam 10:11; 20:27, 30; 22:12 (references provided by Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12, 300); E. J. Revell, The Designation of the Individual: Expressive Usage in Biblical Narrative (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), 174.
29. L. J. de Regt, Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator: Reference Devices and Their Rhetorical Impact (SSN; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1999), 34, 35.
30. Oswald T. Allis, The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its Critics (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1972), 43.
31. Irvine, Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis, 151.
32. So too Paul D. Wegner, An Examination of Kingship and Messianic Expectation in Isaiah 1-35 (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1992), 93.
33. BDB lists no pejorative use of אלה (BDB 41), nor does GKC or KBL, but “this one” (זה) is often used contemptuously in the OT (BDB 260 1a). GKC §136b cites 1 Sam 10:27; 21:16 [ET 21:15]; 1 Kgs 22:27, and Isa 6:10 as examples of זה “with a secondary sense of contempt.”
34. L. G. Rignell, “Das Immanuelszeichen: Einige Gesichtspunkte zu Jes. 7,” ST 11 (1957): 104; Ackroyd, “Historians and Prophets,” 29 n. 14; Garsiel, BiblicalNames, 261.
35. Cf. Rashi’s midrashic comments on Gen 14:2, wherein the names of the various foreign kings are found to have evil associations. For such consonantal transpositions, see Garsiel, Biblical Names, 90, 91.
36. E.g., Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 634: “Hezekiah, whom he pointedly refuses to call king”; Revell, Designation of the Individual, 131.
37. See E. J. Revell, “The Repetition of Introductions to Speech as a Feature of Biblical Hebrew,” VT 47 (1997): 91-110; L. J. de Regt, “Participant Reference in Some Biblical Hebrew Texts,” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap“Ex Oriente Lux” 32 (1991-1992): 156.
38. De Regt, “Participant Reference,” 169, 170.
39. Pace Gitay, who uses the alternation to differentiate between Ahaz and the royal court; see Y. Gitay, “Isaiah and the Syro-Ephraimite War,” in Le livre d’Isaie, 221, 222.
40. Cf. Miscall, Isaiah, 36; and Antti Laato, Who Is Immanuel? The Rise and the Foundering of Isaiah’s Messianic Expectations (Abo Akademi Dissertation; Abo: Abo Akademis Forlag, 1988), 119, 120.
41. According to de Jong, Isa 7:1-17 “is a composition with a clear dynastic-critical tendency”; see M. J. de Jong, “From Legitimate King to Protected City: The Development of Isaiah 7:1-17,” in “Enlarge the Site of Your Tent”: The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah; The Isaiah Workshop (ed. Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen and Annemarieke van der Woude; OTS 58; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2011), 25.
42. For the use of אמן in 1 Sam 25:28; 1 Kgs 11:38; Isa 55:3, and the frequent occurrence of the same root in Ps 89:22-38 (ET 21-37), see E. Wurthwein, “Jesaja 7,1-9: Ein Beitrag zu dem Thema: Prophetie und Politik,” in Wort und Existenz: Studien zum Alten Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 127-43; Thomas Wagner, Gottes Herrschaft: Eine Analyse der Denkschrift (Jes 6,1-9,6) (VTSup 108; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005), 165.
43. For the connection between the two verses, see Jurgen Werlitz, Studien zur literarkritischen Methode: Gericht und Heil in Jesaja 7,1-17 und 29,1-8 (BZAW 204; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 166-69.
44. Seybold (Das davidische Konigtum, 70) sees this implied in the double negative of v. 9b.
45. Also Clements, Isaiah 1-39, 87; and Walton, “What’s in a Name?,” 295.
46. E.g., Clements, Isaiah 1-39, 88; and John J. Collins, “The Sign of Immanuel,” in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel (ed. John Day; LHB/OTS 531; New York: T&T Clark International, 2010), 234-36.
47. Jorg Barthel, Prophetenwort und Geschichte: Die Jesajauberlieferung in Jes 6-8 und 28-31 (FAT 19; Tubingen : Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 146; E. J. Young, “The Immanuel Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14-16,” WTJ 15 (1953): 109-11.
48. Wegner, Examination, 125-27. Wildberger notes the abrupt change of imagery at 8:8b (from a widespread flood to the outstretched wings of a bird) and sees the latter image as a metaphor of YHWH’s protection (Isaiah 1-12, 346-48). He admits, however, that on this interpretation it is impossible to view v. 8b as belonging to the original text of 8:5-8a. It must be a redactional addition. I am not convinced that the mixing of metaphors necessarily indicates editorial adjustment. As well, the cross-references provided by Wildberger (who depends on G. B. Gray) to Ruth (2:12) and the Psalms (e.g., 17:8; 36:8 [ET 7]) speak of sheltering “under” or “in the shadow of” God’s wings, but these expressions are not replicated in Isa 8:8. The other references, provided by Gray, depicting enemies as threatening birds of prey are more apposite (Hos 8:1; Ezek 17:1-10; Jer 48:40) (George Buchanan Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912], 148). The picture of v. 8b (“his [God’s] wings”), therefore, is of God as a carrion bird over its victim. The same issue of a positive or negative interpretation of the picture of God as a bird is found in Isa 31:5; see Michael L. Barre, “Of Lions and Birds: A Note on Isaiah 31:4-5,” in Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings (ed. Philip R. Davies and David J. A. Clines; JSOTSup 144; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 55-59.
49. Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen, The Implied Reader in Isaiah 6-12 (Biblical Interpretation 34; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), 77.
50. Williamson, Variations on a Theme, 106, 107.
51. E.g., Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12, 313.
52. H. G. M. Williamson, “The Messianic Texts in Isaiah 1-39,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. John Day; JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 253.
53. As tabulated by Wegner (Examination, 124 n. 281), the promise of YHWH’s presence in a time of crisis is given to Abraham and Isaac (Gen 26:3), Jacob (Gen 28:15), Joseph (Gen 39:2, 3, 21, 23), Joshua (Josh 6:27), and David (1 Sam 18:14), and, I would add, to Israel (Ps 46:7, 11 [HB 8, 12]).
54. See Edgar W. Conrad, Reading Isaiah (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 34-51; Leon J. Liebreich, “The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah,” JQR 46 (1955-1956): 262.
55. For the different interpretations of the Immanuel saying, see the extensive listing in J. Coppens, Le messianisme royal: Ses origines, son developpement, son accomplissement (LD 54; Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1968), 69 n. 20, who notes, “Des trois passages [i.e., Isa 7:10-17; 9:1-6; and 11:1-5], Is 7, 10-17 est le plus controverse.”
56. J. M. Sasson, “Wordplay in the OT,” IDBSup (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 968-70. “Of the major prophets, only Isaiah (mostly First Isaiah) can be reckoned as an inveterate punster” (970). See also Robert B. Chisholm, “Word Play in the Eighth-Century Prophet,” BSac 144 (1987): 44-52.
57. See the discussion in Jan de Waard, A Handbook on Isaiah (Textual Criticism and the Translator 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 32, 33.
58. Williamson, Variations on a Theme, 103; Wegner, Examination, 114, 115, 118, 119.
59. See S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (trans. G. W. Anderson; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956), 110-19; C. R. North, “Immanuel,” IDB 2:687-88. This is no more than a possibility, as conceded by Wegner (Examination, 115, 117, 118).
60. Though Williamson tends towards the view of a royal child, he acknowledges, “The infant Immanuel himself, of course, is not provided with any specific family tree” (Variations on a Theme, 110); pace Coppens (Le messianisme royal, 73), who claims, “Le caractere royal d’Emmanuel est confirme” (though he must rely on supposed Ugaritic parallels).
61. Examination, 121, 122. The ambiguity does not invite a messianic identification of the child, pace Randall Heskett, Messianism within the Scriptural Scrolls of Isaiah (LHB/OTS 456; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), 108, 109.