The Sign of Peace

Introduction:

Advent season is a season of waiting, and is also a season to reminds us of God’s love, peace, joy and hope for us. This Sunday is the second Advent Sunday and we want to focus on peace.

Talking on peace, what is our source of peace?

in our passage this morning, we see three main reasons that make us to have no peace in life. These three reasons can be seen from King Ahaz in the story.

After King Solomon, Israel is divided into two kingdoms. The Northern part is called Kingdom of Israel with Samaria as the capital, while the Southern part is called Kingdom of Judah where Jerusalem is the capital. King Ahaz mentioned in Isaiah 7 was the King of Judah in 730-715 BCE when prophets Hosea, Micah and Isaiah were active at that time.

at the time of Syro-Ephraimite War. A modern term (but see Isa 7:2) designating a war that pitted the kingdom of Judah against a coalition comprised of Damascus (Syria) and Israel (Ephraim) (2 Kgs 15:37; 16:5–9; Isa 7:1–9; 2 Chr 27:1–9; 28:1–27). The apparent purpose of the war was to dispose of young Ahaz, king of Judah, and to pressure Judah into joining Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Israel in opposition to the expanding Assyrian empire. Assyria, however, came to Ahaz’ assistance and relieved the pressure by attacking Syria (Damascus was captured ca. 732 b.c.). A decade later the Assyrian army attacked Israel, destroying Samaria in 722/721 b.c.

From the passage, we see the King Ahaz had no peace of mind for a few reasons.

Our Surrounding (V1-2)

First, his peace is influenced by his surrounding. At this time, he was threathen by political instablity. v2 describes that the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

The story about Isaiah and Ahaz starts with something like a news headline. The first sentence summarizes the story before the main part gives the details. The detailed story refers to Syria and Ephraim, which makes clear that the headline’s reference to Israel means the northern kingdom, which can also be less confusingly referred to as Ephraim. Its geographical position made Ephraim more vulnerable to Assyrian interest in extending its control in the countries toward the Mediterranean, and Syria and Ephraim together are intent on resisting Assyria’s expansion of its empire. They want Judah to join them, but geography makes Judah less interested in taking on the superpower. So Syria and Ephraim are seeking to lean on Judah and are prepared to force a regime change there to put on the throne someone more amenable to their policies.

expansionist/imperialist policies of the Mesopotamian power, Assyria, the two major states of northern Palestine, Aram and Israel, had entered into a defensive alliance and, considering that an all-Palestine alliance would give greater collective security, pressed Judah to join. When diplomacy failed to entice Judah, the northern powers invaded to force Ahaz’ hand (2 Chr. 28:5–8), but they could not overpower Jerusalem. A second invasion followed (2 Chr. 28:17–18), purposing now to replace Ahaz by a puppet king (6). For this reason Ahaz is described as the house of David, for it is a time of dynastic threat. What he now does will determine the future of David’s line. Has allied itself with: the by now ten-year-old alliance could not be the cause of this fresh panic. The verb (nāḥâ) always (sixty-three times in the Old Testament) has the meaning given in verse 19, settle or ‘swarm’. This is indeed frightening news as spies slip back home to say ‘the place is swarming with them’. Another invasion is impending, causing king and people to ‘flap’ as the trees of the forest are shaken! Contrast 28:16, ‘the one who trusts will not panic’ (lit.). at the Time of the Syro-Israelitish War. The Syro-Israelitish war is touched on both in Kings and Chronicles. In Kings the alliance between the Rezin and Pekah is distinctly declared, as also the fact that they conjointly besieged Jerusalem

When thing get worse, we forget about our previous victory in the Lord. The enemies seem to be stronger and stronger.

What has coused our hearts shaken like the trees of the forest shaken by the wind? What is the strong wind that we are experiencing now?

Our Faith (v3-9)

God has called Isaiah to tell King Ahaz not to be afraid, but be careful and keep calm (v3-4). God has even assured him not to lose heart because of the fierce anger of his enemies (v5-6)

The message of reassurance in v.7 is clear, and the NIV has brought out the sense by its insertion of the word “only” (not in the Hebrew) in vv.8–9. The rulers of the two small kingdoms to the north were but human beings; they could not stand against the decree of the sovereign Lord (v.7)

However, Ahaz’s faith was impacted by something that he wants to secure. Verse 4 tells us that Ahaz is at the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, a place where the water supply is located. He wants to secure the water supply against the coming siege. The meeting place of prophet and king is precisely located; but, unlike the original readers, we cannot now place it with certainty. The reason for its choice is much clearer. An adequate water supply is imperative for a city under siege. The king was probably satisfying himself as to this or making arrangements for its improvement. He was therefore engaged in an activity directly related to the situation described in v.1 and which provided the setting for God’s test of his faith and obedience.

In trying to be practical, Ahaz is out checking the city’s water supply. In a country such as theirs, people commonly built their cities on a hill, which was a good defensive position. Yet it meant water supply was a problem; a besieging army could sit tight and wait till the city ran out. So cities tried to safeguard and protect their water supply; Ahaz is out doing so. It’s the responsible thing to do. Isaiah doesn’t say it’s wrong but does warn Ahaz to avoid assuming that such action is the key to surviving the expected siege. The decisive fact is that Yahweh has made a declaration about what will happen to Syria and Ephraim, their capitals, and their kings. They’re not Israel (in the theological sense), their capitals are not Jerusalem, and their kings don’t belong to David’s household. Ephraim is on the verge of obliteration. It fell to Assyria a decade later; the “sixty-five years” looks like an allusion to an event referred to in Ezra 4. Judah’s job is to stand firm in trust in Yahweh if it wants to stand firm as a people; Isaiah uses two forms of the same verb to make the point about the connection between these two forms of standing firm.

instead of focusing on the threat, God give them comfort telling them that it will not take place. God ask Ahaz to be careful and keep calm - to keep quiet and do nothing. That is a utmost form of waiting. and this kind of waiting need a great faith in the Lord.

Ahaz, however, had it in mind to do plenty. He intended to play the clever politician by securing Assyria itself as his security against the northern powers (2 Kgs 16:7–9). Isaiah saw it differently. The aggressor kings might display ‘flaming anger’ but actually they were only smouldering stubs, fag-ends! If only Ahaz could be persuaded to disengage himself from politics, Assyria would in any case squash the northern kingdoms and the Lord would preserve Judah—as indeed he ultimately did (37:36–37). But if Ahaz links himself to Assyria he will indeed have taken a tiger by the tail! In all this the issue is clear-cut: is salvation by faith or by works? Will Ahaz be saved by trust or by astute political gambles?

Rezin was Aram’s last king, and Pekah was Israel’s next-to-last king. Isaiah told Ahaz not to be afraid of Rezin and Pekah, for they were mere smoldering stubs of firewood. Their lives would soon end; like firewood they would be burned up and gone. Both men died two years later in 732 b.c. Aram and Israel threatened to invade Judah, split it between the two conquering nations, and set up a puppet king. In response to the Aram-Israel threat the Sovereign Lord had an answer: It (the attack) would not take place; it would not happen. The reason was that both of those nations were headed by mere (only, vv. 8–9) men. Ironically Isaiah referred to Pekah by name only once (v. 1). Four other times he called him “the son of Remaliah” or Remaliah’s son (vv. 4–5, 9; 8:6). He and Rezin could not thwart God’s plans. In fact Isaiah made the startling prophecy that within 65 years Israel would no longer even be a people because they would be so shattered (7:8)

Many at time, we are like Ahaz. We try to find our own ways, instead of trusting in the Lord. It is the greatness of the Lord that makes faith a practical policy in even the hardest realities of life (see Prov. 16:1, 33). It also leaves unbelief without excuse.

verse 9 brings out a conclusion of what God is to tell King Ahaz through Isaiah - if Ahaz refuses to trust, he has no future. if we do not stand firm in our faith, we will not stand at all

Our ignorance/disobedience toward God (v10-13)

Why does not Ahaz ask God for a sign when the Lord spoke to Ahaz? because he has forgotten God and God’s messenger. He does not treat Isaiah’s word as the Lord’s word.

The political situation was tense in Jerusalem. In the early 730s BC the aggressive Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III was busy on his northern frontier. During this time, Rezin, the king of Aram with its capital in Damascus, and Pekah, the king of Israel (also known as Ephraim), joined forces to withstand the almost certain Assyrian attack that would follow Tiglath-pileser’s victory in the north. Rezin and Pekah wanted Judah to support them, but Ahaz wanted nothing to do with the alliance. By this time he might already have paid (or at least was contemplating paying) the Assyrians to rescue him from these kings (2Kg 16:6–9). He probably feared Tiglath-pileser, but he apparently realized the Syro-Ephraimite coalition was a more immediate threat. Isaiah confronted the king with a question: What was the source of his trust: the Lord or the Assyrians? The purpose of a sign was to give Ahaz even more reason to have confidence in God rather than Assyria to rescue him from Rezin and Pekah. Sheol refers to the underworld. Ahaz had already decided to call on Assyria for help.

Ahaz is not sincerely avoid testing God. He express his pious through his word. He is doing devil’s work of quoting Scripture for his own purposes. Ahaz made his plans, and they did not include God or his will. Ahaz’s reply was a monumental piece of hypocrisy. As O. Kaiser (in loc.) aptly puts it, “There are situations in which outward piety and inward unbelief are identical.” Ahaz probably had Deuteronomy 6:16 in mind. It would be good to think that this reveals at least some small attempt earlier in his life to come to grips with this book, which the king was obliged to know and follow (cf. Deut 17:14–20, esp. vv.18–19). Just as Satan was later to quote and misuse Scripture in the temptation of God’s Son—to which Jesus gave reply from the very verse Ahaz must have had in mind (Matt 4:6–7)—so here a godless king made an inappropriate and unbelieving allusion to what God had said. It is not testing God to do as he says!

13 Ahaz was still addressed as “house of David” (cf. v.2), with its implication of special promises and also of a continuing dynasty; but here the prophet spoke of “my God” instead of “your God” (cf. v.11). Ahaz may have been the current occupant of the divinely secured throne of David; but it was incumbent on him to hear the divine word through the prophet who, unlike him, was in a sensitive and responsive relationship with God. It was that relationship that made the king’s rejection of the prophetic word a trial of God’s patience and not simply man’s. God was weary of his unbelief (cf. RSV and comment at 1:14).

This oracle probably followed closely on the previous one, for it is related to the same situation. It implies (see esp. the reference to “patience” in v.13) that the earlier prophecy has been rejected or at least treated with noncommittal evasion by the king. If there was even a spark of faith in Ahaz, God was willing to give it an opportunity of expression. He responded to Gideon’s repeated request for a sign, even though it followed a clear revelation of his saving will (Judg 6:14, 17–18, 38–40). Once again, as in the day of the Midianite menace (cf. 9:4), a superior foe was threatening the nation. God went even further this time in his patience with human weakness, for he actually offered Ahaz carte blanche, the unrestricted choice of a sign (v.11)

we do not understand God’s will.

We challenge the patience of God. From the start David’s house has not fulfilled its divine remit, producing neither the perfect king nor the golden age. It has failed both men and God, but now this whole history of inadequacy has come to a head. The royal refusal of trust is the end of the line. For this reason the prophet can speak of my God but he cannot repeat the your God of verse 10.

Conclusion (v14)

Sign of peace is not our surrounding, not our faith nor our knowledge, but who God himself is - Immanuel

“God is with us” is the greatest hope to Ahaz. However, The sign will do Ahaz no good because of the attitude he brings to it. The Assyrians who will devastate Syria and Ephraim will also invade Judah. It’s one implication of the name of the son Isaiah takes with him when he confronts Ahaz. The name could be a promise that “[only] the remains [of Assyria] will return [home].” But it could be a warning that “[only] the remains [of Judah] will survive.” It could also imply that “[at least] some remains [of Judah] will survive.” It could be a call to people to separate themselves from the stance of the people as whole: “the remains must return [to Yahweh].” You have to work out what it signifies in light of who you are.

How about us? What is the sign of peace for us? How is the sign of Immanuel have anything to do with us in this Christmas as we are waiting upon Him in this advent season? The sign of Christmas should reminds us of the main character who brings us peace in this season.