Psalm 46: The Song Behind the Immanuel Promise

For Advent at Wallace this year we have been preaching through the promises of a coming child from Isaiah 7-11. As we have been working through them, I have noticed several connections back to Psalm 46. This is a song that Isaiah and his contemporaries would have been singing, and it seems to be in the background of a lot of what he has to say. I thought I’d take a moment to explore these connections this Christmas.

Let’s summarize the child promises of Isaiah 7-11. Beginning with the famous “Immanuel” prophecy of Isaiah 7:14-17, these promises stand out as glimmers of hope among the surrounding warnings of coming judgment at the hands of the Assyrians. As they go along, they peer out ever more from the immediately looming crisis into the future.

The Immanuel child whom we meet in Isaiah 7:14-17 is primarily a sign of the immediate future: whether we take the child-development marker described as the first glimmers of moral choice, or simply learning to distinguish sweet and sour taste, the arrival of the milestone will resolve the threat to Judah posed by the Aram-Israel alliance. This will happen when they are destroyed by Assyria, an event not more than five years in the future from the point the prophecy was given. Of course, v.17 peeks ahead to the subsequent threat Assyria will pose to Judah itself, a theme further explored by the other oracles collected in the rest of chapter 7.

The double-oracle in 8:5-10 shows the closest links back to 7:14. The two parts of the oracle (verses 5-8 and 9-10) end with the term “Immanuel” – the first time as the addressee of the oracle, the second time as the meaningful sentence, “God with us.” The timeframe for verses 5-8 alludes to the destruction of Aram and Israel, but focuses more on Assyrian incursions into Judah. It is possible to see the image of water rising to the neck of Judah as a reference to the invasion of Sennacherib, who in 701 BC captured all but Jerusalem before his army was struck by God (so, over thirty years from the original Immanuel prophecy). But the prophecy is vague, and may be related to earlier Assyrian campaigns in the area. Verses 9-10 shift to the description of God’s defeat of foreign peoples – this could again be Sennacherib, but the reference to “peoples” in the plural suggests it is about more than just the Assyrians, linking to the prophecies against the nations in Isaiah 14-23 and even the apocalypse of Isaiah 24-27, where all the nations of the earth are judged. In other words, Isaiah 8:5-10 vaults from prophetic interpretation of current events to a far-future eschatological horizon.

This in fact fits in with a wider theme in chapter 8. The chapter begins with Isaiah writing the name of his son Maher-shalal-hash-baz on a public placard. Much like the Immanuel child, Maher-shalal-hash-baz is a sign of the defeat of Aram and Israel, which will happen when he hits the developmental milestone of saying “mama” and “dada.” There is also special focus on his conception (though it is unclear whether his mother qualifies as a “maiden/virgin”). Unlike 7:14-17, however, there is no mention here of Assyria moving on to attack Judah. Indeed, the whole point of the public placarding of the promise seems to be to prevent this: By proving the reliability of the prophecy with written receipts, the faith of the people ought to be confirmed, so that they might be brought back to obedience to God’s teaching and so receive blessing.

But in fact this is not what happens. The people fail to respond in faith to the sign, just as their king did in the previous chapter. So we move to another kind of writing in 8:16 – not a public placard, but a sealed testimony maintained in the community of disicples. The sign given for that day is deferred for the future. Isaiah and his children will serve as ongoing signs for the people (8:18) – a reference to his literal children, whose names mark them out as living signs, but probably also a reference to the prophet’s metaphorical children, his disciples who will maintain the sealed testimony for future generations. The Immanuel prophecies in 8:5-10 stand in the middle of this movement, bridging the original context of the Aram-Israel crisis out into the decades of Assyrian domination down to Sennacherib, and beyond to the final eschatological defeat of the nations.

The thread is picked up again in chapter 9:2-7. We jump forward chronologically to the pillaging of the Galilee by Tiglath-Pileser III. Against this dark fulfillment of the original Immanuel prophecy, the light of a new promise dawns. The connections to the Immanuel promise of 7:14 are not so strong or explicit as 8:5-10 – the term Immanuel is not used. Nevertheless, in verse 6 there is reference to a child given by God. Fitting the broader concept of “God with us,” the child is labelled with names that sound like divine titles – “Miraculous Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father.” While one can argue that the Immanuel child of chapters 7 and 8 is a prophetic child, the child of chapter 9 is clearly royal, sitting on the throne of David and ruling his kingdom (9:6). Perhaps he is even Messianic, if we press the permanent, unending nature of his kingdom. If we take this language as somewhat hyperbolic, he could be understood as simply a good king. Still, it is difficult to identify the promised king with either Hezekiah or Josiah, the only two good historical candidates.

Moving on to 11:1-9, the theme of a given child appears in the genealogical form of a branch from Jesse’s stump. Though there is no explicit reference to the name “Immanuel,” the God-with-us idea appears in the form of the presence of God’s Spirit with the Branch, bringing wisdom, strength, and the fear of the Lord. This results in just government, a theme that links this passage especially closely with 9:6-7, and possibly also forward to the figure of the Servant in 42:1. The Branch is clearly a Davidic king, although the fact that his weapon of justice is his speech in 11:4 might give him a prophetic dimension, and may also be compared to the figure of the Servant, who brings justice through his teaching rather than with the sword (cf. 42:1-4; 49:2). So great is the peace he brings that even the animals will cease to prey on each other (11:6-7) – this eschatological detail suggests the Branch is more than a mere king, but in fact the Messiah.

Psalm 46 is frequently mentioned as a source for “Zion theology” in Isaiah. The central theme of “Zion theology” would be the presence of God in his temple in Jerusalem (on Mt. Zion), and the protection his presence brings to the city. Psalm 46 juxtaposes the turbulence of the sea – a metaphor for the military violence of the nations – with the tranquility of Zion’s river. Because God dwells in Zion, the nations who attack her will be defeated. Here is my translation of the psalm:

For the music director, of the sons of Korah, according to Alamoth, a song.
1 God is for us a refuge and strength,
 he is found a ready help in straights.
2 Therefore we will not fear when the earth shakes,
 and mountains move into the heart of the seas,
3 its waters roar and foam,
 the mountains shake at its surge. (Selah)
4 There is a river whose channels give joy to the city of God,
 the holy place, the dwelling of the Most High.
5 God is in her midst, she shall not be moved,
 God will help her at break of day.
6 The nations roared, kingdoms moved,
 he raised his voice, the earth melted.
7 Yahweh of Armies is with us,
 the God of Jacob is a refuge for us. (Selah)
8 Come and see the deeds of Yahweh,
 who makes devastation upon the earth,
9 who stops wars to the end of the earth,
 who breaks bow and shatters spear,
  the wagons he burns with fire.
10 Be still, and know that I am God,
 I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted on the earth.
11 Yahweh of Armies is with us,
 the God of Jacob is a refuge for us. (Selah)Psalm 46

The first thing that connects this psalm to the Immanuel promises is the concept of Immanuel itself. Two times the psalm repeats the phrase, “Yahweh of Armies is with us.” The term “with us” is the Hebrew phrase ˤimmānû, the same phrase embedded in the name Immanu-El. Of course, the slogan itself captures the idea of Zion theology in a nutshell – God is with us – he dwells with us in Zion – therefore we will be kept safe from our enemies.

But we need to immediately note how Isaiah turns this Zion theology on its head. Consider the phrase “Yahweh of Armies” (yhwh ṣǝbāˀôt) – traditionally associated with Yahweh’s presence with the ark, it communicates that Yahweh will marshal his heavenly army to go out and fight with and for his people. But as it appears in Isaiah’s prophecies, the enemy Yahweh is marching out against is frequently his own people (cf. Isaiah 1:24-25). Far from a blessed assurance that God is on our side, Isaiah seeks to wake up his people to the fact that God is not on their side – because of their sin, they have become God’s enemies, and occupy the position traditionally assigned to hostile nations.

This is precisely the idea in the Isaiah 7:14-17. The name Immanuel initially does signify God’s deliverance of Judah and Jerusalem from the hostile nations of Aram and Israel. But then it has precisely the opposite signification: God will bring Assyria as his instrument of judgment precisely against Judah and Jerusalem. It’s all good and well to talk about God’s presence, but will God be present in his grace or in his wrath against his people’s sin?

On another level, the “us” in “God-with-us” follows an alternation of pronouns in the previous verses. In the word to Ahaz of verse 11, God is referred to as “Yahweh your God,” but after Ahaz refuses the offered sign, God is “my God” in Isaiah’s response in verse 13. So the “us” of “God-with-us” may refer to Isaiah and his disciples – “God is with us, O king, but he is not with you.”

Ahaz’ precise sin is also best articulated in the terms of Psalm 46. In the psalm, God’s people “will not fear” the nations (46:2) because God is their refuge. They are exhorted to “be still” in 46:11, trusting that God will be exalted over the nations. Meanwhile, Ahaz trembles with fear (Isaiah 7:2). Isaiah exhorts Ahaz instead to “be calm” (7:4) and to “have faith” (7:9).

The Immanuel promise of Isaiah 7 thus interrupts a simplistic reading of Psalm 46. God’s protection of Zion is not simply an automatic benefit the Davidic king can rely on, irrespective of his behavior. Quite the opposite, because the God who dwells in Zion is a holy God (cf. Isaiah 6), he may bring judgment rather than protection due to his people’s sin. God’s people can’t expect the protection of Psalm 46 if they are unwilling to take up the posture of quiet faith Psalm 46 commands.

This double-meaning of “Immanuel” is also operational in the child promise of Isaiah 8:5-10. The Immanuel child is in the first place a sign of God’s imminent presence in judgment, bringing Assyria to afflict his own people. Here I think we should recognize that the whole imagery of Isaiah 8:6-8 is drawn from Psalm 46. “Therefore because this people has rejected the waters of Shiloah, which flows gently and joyfully…” (8:6). Leaving aside precisely which water system of Jerusalem is being referred to by “Shiloah,” the image of a life-giving river is of course found in Psalm 46:4. This is even communicated through the same idea of “joy” in both cases. Against many translations, the term “rejoicing” does not describe the people’s rejoicing over Rezin, but is an attribute of the river itself. The same term describes the pasturage supplied to wild donkeys in Isaiah 32:14 – “rejoicing” in the sense of “enjoyment” of the food and water necessary for life. In Psalm 46, the river is a token of God’s provision, on which his people are supposed to rely. But God’s people have instead despised this river.

Initially, one might identify “this people” only with Israel, the northern kingdom. This would allow a conventional “Zion theology” reading – Israel has rejected the leadership of Jerusalem, where God dwells, and they have come against his holy city, so they will be destroyed by him. But in verse 7, it becomes clear that even Judah is included! Not only Israel has despised dependence on Zion’s God, Judah has also done so. Paradoxically, the inhabitants of Zion are the enemies of Zion’s God, who will bring the punishment due to the enemies of Zion up to the gates of Zion itself. Incidentally, this is why it is important to understand that the term “rejoicing” qualifies the river, not the people. Neither Ahaz nor Judah could easily be said to have “rejoiced” over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, the kings of Aram and Israel who had attacked them! But the best understanding leaves us with a more vague description – “this people have despised the waters of Shiloah… with Rezin and the son of Remaliah.” This could describe the people of Israel, but it can also describe Ahaz himself, who had the exact same theological problem as his enemies – despising dependence on the God of Zion. In fact, it is possible that the vague awkwardness of this final clause in the verse (it has been often dismissed as a later gloss) is precisely because there is a prophetic trap sprung here – on a first reading, the audience assumes “this people” being judged is those people of Israel over there, our enemies – but the end of the prophecy forces a reinterpretation by explicitly including them in the judgment.

On top of the gentle and joyful river, we also find the contrasting image of foreign nations as turbulent waters – in Psalm 46, this is the sea, but in Isaiah 8:7-8, it is the Euphrates, the image adapted to the particular nation under discussion (Assyria). But still the turbulence of the waters is a metaphor for the military violence of the nations. Instead of stilling the waters, God is the one stirring them up, bringing the Assyrians in judgment on his people.

Then, in the second Immanuel promise of 8:9-10, we get a return to conventional Zion theology. The nations come to make war, but God defeats them – precisely as promised in Psalm 46! This is an important reversal: it is not as if Psalm 46 is just wrong. It is not as if Zion theology is wholly bad. Ultimately, God will be “exalted among the nations” (Psalm 46:10), and he will deliver his people from their violence. But because of the people’s lack of faith, the promise of Psalm 46 gets pushed off into the eschatological future. That small community of Isaiah’s disciples, who do have faith, will have to wait for God, who is hiding his face from his people (8:17). They can still sing Psalm 46, but it means something different for them than for their contemporaries – in some important sense, God is not with his people now. “Immanuel” is something they must wait for in the future.

Moving to Isaiah 9:2-7, we get a different echo of Psalm 46. The image of light in darkness in Isaiah 9:2 is similar to God’s help at daybreak in Psalm 46:5, but this is a common image. In 9:4-5, we have the defeat of enemies attacking God’s people – also a common enough theme. But in verse 5, this is described through the destruction of military gear – specifically, boots and blood-soaked garments are destroyed by fire. In Psalm 46, it is bows, spears, and wagons which are destroyed. But though the specific implements are switched out, the mode of destruction is the same. There is a similar reworking of this idea in Isaiah 2:4, where swords are beat into plowshares, and spears into pruning hooks – oddly, though several commentators identify an echo of Psalm 46 in their discussion of Isaiah 2:4, the same commentators do not recognize the same influence in Isaiah 9:5, which is if anything closer to Psalm 46:9. In any case, this promise of deliverance from the nations makes it clear that the reversal of Zion theology in the case of judgment by Assyria is temporary. Unlike the most immediate meaning of the Immanuel child, the child promised in Isaiah 9 is purely a symbol of hope, a sign of God’s deliverance of his people from the oppression of the nations. Importantly though, this child inaugurates a reign of justice. As the Prince of Peace, who bears the name of God’s might and counsel, he is able to make Zion a city of justice, wherein God can dwell in blessing and protection.

Moving on to Isaiah 11:1-9, I wouldn’t identify any close echoes of Psalm 46 here. The general theme of peace is given a unique elaboration in the form of the truce between predators and prey, but this is a very loose thematic connection. It may be worth observing that the idea of the root from Jesse is taken up again in 11:10. Here, the nations appear not as antagonists, but as those who seek out the branch. This does seem to be an ironic reversal of the idea of the nations assembling to Zion to war against God’s people – in Isaiah 11:10-16, the nations rally to the banner to restore God’s people to Zion! In Isaiah 8:9-10 and 9:4-5, the nations had appeared simply in the role of enemies, as in Psalm 46. But of course, the nations throughout the book of Isaiah need not be God’s enemies, since they have the option of faith in God and pilgrimage to worship in Zion. For example, in Isaiah 2:1-4 the nations come to Zion to learn God’s teaching, and to resolve their differences and live in peace. To the extent that Isaiah 2:4 is a reworking of Psalm 46:9, an important difference is that it is the nations who voluntarily destroy their weapons, not the judgment fire of God.

If we don’t have close echoes of Psalm 46 in Isaiah 11:1-9, we nevertheless do have Zion theology at play. God’s presence in Zion is located first of all in his indwelling of the Branch by his Spirit. This allows the Branch to inaugurate a reign of justice, and punish the oppressors and wicked among God’s people. This leads to Zion becoming a place of unparalleled peace, such that even the animals put aside their old differences. Finally, the holy mountain becomes the epicentre of God’s plan for the earth, which is now “full of the knowledge of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:9). Might this be seen as a reversal of the sea imagery of Psalm 46? There, the chaotic violence of the nations was mirrored in the surging sea, surrounding Zion as an oasis of calm. But here, the sea of the knowledge of God flows out from Zion (cf. Isaiah 2:2), filling the whole earth with the peace of Zion’s gentle and joyful river. The raging of the sea has been stilled – not by God’s destruction of the nations, but by the redemptive power of his teaching going forth from Zion!

Perhaps the reason Psalm 46 is not typically given this much attention by commentators on this part of Isaiah is that the echoes I identify here are hardly word-for-word allusions. The child promises of Isaiah do not so much cite this psalm as borrow and build upon its imagery. Nevertheless, I think some of the imagery is uncommon enough to identify Psalm 46 as the source, especially the peaceful river and the destruction of weapons. This psalm would have been familiar to Isaiah and his disciples as well as to their opponents in Judah, the proponents of a bad Zion theology.

If Jesus is the child Isaiah promised, how does Psalm 46, and Isaiah’s teaching about it, help us understand the Christmas story? Minimally, it may chasten some of our expectations about the incarnation. In Jesus, God is with us, to set right what is wrong with the world. But does that mean God is on our side, in the sense that all our enemies are his? Or perhaps we need to recognize that we are his enemies? That the presence of a Holy God is not automatically good news for sinful people? Perhaps Herod understood all too well the danger of baby Jesus, that he was a threat to kings who have built their kingdoms on injustice.

But at the same time, the birth of Jesus was a declaration of peace on earth by heaven. The angel armies of Yahweh of Armies came not to destroy the nations but to sing in joy at the birth of the promised child. This is because this child is the promised light in the darkness, who came to bring justice and peace. Through him will come atonement for the sins of his people (just as the angel cleansed Isaiah’s lips with a coal from the altar so he could stand in God’s presence). Through him also will come the Spirit-wrought holiness of God’s people, as they are transformed by his teaching to become a just and holy people, fit for God’s presence. Zion theology requires this work in the hearts of God’s people if it is not going to be a presumptive, bad Zion theology.

Finally, the hope of Immanuel will not only be for the peoples of Judah and Israel, but also for the nations. “I will be exalted among the nations” – this does not need to happen through God’s judgment of the nations, but may be because the nations accept the teaching of God’s king, and learn to depend on him in quiet faith. The peace of Zion’s river is not just for Zion, but is meant to flow out, bringing peace on earth, and goodwill to men.