Isaiah 8:5

"And Jehovah spake unto me yet again, saying, Forasmuch as this people have refused the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth upon them the waters of the River, strong and mighty, even the king of Assyria and all his glory: and it shall come up over all its channels, and go over all its banks; and it shall sweep onward into Judah; it shall overflow and pass through; it shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of its wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel."

"This people ..." This usually refers to the Ten Tribes; but in Isaiah's era it also included rebellious and unbelieving Judah, whom God did not call "my people" during their apostasy, but "this people."

The outstanding thing in this paragraph is the contrast between the "waters that go softly" and the rampaging flood waters of the Euphrates River, these metaphors standing here for the benign and quiet government of the Lord and for the violent, cruel and ruthless domination of the king of Assyria.

"The waters that go softly ..." These were the waters that fed the pool of Siloam at which pool Jesus gave eyesight to the man born blind (John 9). (See our discussion of this in Vol. 4 of the New Testament Series of Commentaries, p. 252.) A careful study of Genesis 49:10; Isaiah 8:6, and John 9:7 reveals that Shiloh, Shiloah, and Siloam are actually the same word gradually changed through the ages. Shiloh in Genesis is a poetic name for Messiah, but the Septuagint (LXX) in Isaiah 8:6 rendered the word Siloam, and Christ revealed through John that the word means "one sent," an obvious reference to Messiah. Thus, Shiloh and Siloam are the same. Such a metamorphosis in words is not uncommon. For example, within the brief history of our country, the Indian name "Powtowmack" was give to the river in Washington D.C., but this spelling, in time, became Potomac. This is proved by a glance at early maps of that area.

It was once believed the waters mentioned here (that went softly) were so-called because they fed through an underground conduit leading into the pool of Siloam from the bottom, enabling the waters to rise silently; but current scholarship denies that this was the case when Isaiah wrote, because Hezekiah built that underground conduit at a later date. We might question the accuracy of that finding, for it leaves unanswered the question of what Ahaz was doing in the fuller's field where the conduit crossed it when Isaiah went to meet him. Did he plan and initiate the underground waterway? and did Hezekiah who finished it merely, claim that he built it? Like many other disputed things with reference to Biblical texts, it does not make the slightest bit of difference. The waters ofthat little stream which initiated under the temple area were the waters "that flowed softly," whether because of the underground conduit or because, "The aqueduct that carried it fell only one-quarter of an inch in 300 yards!"[7] Right here is most probably the correct answer.

The waters from this stream were still further connected with Jesus Christ; because in the midst of the Feast of Tabernacles, "According to the Talmud, waters were drawn from Siloam's pool and carried in a golden vessel to be carried to the Temple on the Feast of Tabernacles."[8] It was on that very day, "Jesus stood and cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink" (John 7:37). How appropriate, therefore, it was for the prophet to have made the waters of Siloam a metaphor of God's government and teaching.

"(They) rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son ..." This does not mean that the people of Judah were at that time in harmony with Rezin and Remaliah's son; "For they were terrified of them;"[9] and the rejoicing would appear to have been in the approaching destruction of Damascus and the Northern Israel.

The great flood of the River, a metaphorical reference to the invasion and destruction of Damascus and Northern Israel (Ephraim), is further revealed here as being an invasion of Judah also. There would be this difference. Although the invasion would be very destructive, it would not reach to the destruction of Jerusalem. "We can hardly miss the application of this to the invasion that culminated in the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib in 701 B.C."[10]

"O Immanuel ..." These are the two most important words in the paragraph, the emphasis being that Assyria has actually dared to attack and devastate the land that belongs to Immanuel, God with us! "This identifies Palestine as the land to which the divine pledge has been given, and embodied in the Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14."[11] From the assurance derived from this profound truth, Isaiah proceeded to denounce all of God's enemies immediately in the next verses. These words are applicable only to Messiah there being no connection whatever between Immanuel and the son of Isaiah. The flood would indeed come up to the neck, but the head would escape. Neither the land (Immanuel's land), nor Jerusalem, nor the people (of whom a remnant would remain) could be destroyed; for, "God had promised Immanuel (the Messiah) would be born (Isaiah 7:14); and Assyria could never thwart God's promise."[12]