EvC Forum: Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7

--Perhaps I am not understanding what your actual position is on this prophecy. I am assuming you are stating that this prophecy in it's original context actually refers to Jesus Christ. Forgive me if I am off base here. Forgive me if I repeat myself in this post

quote:
I do not dispute that the house of David at the time of the prophecy was the kingdom of Judah under Ahaz. My contention is that after King Ahaz was offered a sign/prophecy for the there and then and declined, the Lord then proclaimed a prophecy of a future birth to the house of David.

It makes no sense (to me) that the Lord would, for no apparent reason, give Ahaz a sign for something completely related when he (through Isaiah) had spent that last few discourses with him discussing the two kings. The threat of the two kings was hot on everyone's mind. What benefit to king Ahaz and those standing around him would a xxx year future prophecy provide? How would the birth of a savior to save all from sins many years later make any difference on the two kings that the house feared? He did not say the future birth would be TO the house of David - he merely stated that a unclassified young woman would give birth to a son. This young child was a sign, nothing was stated of his actual actions beyond normal child growth (knowing how to choose between right and wrong) bearing any significance.

Not only do I not find any sufficient evidence prior to the prophecy to make this gigantic leap, but it just does not make sense.

quote:
The Lord was clearly ticked after Ahaz, representing the House of David declined the offer, which by the way was offered to assure Ahaz that what the Lord had promised about these two threatening kingdoms would come to pass. So the Lord said that He was going to give a sign anyhow, not for the there and then, but for the future.

Where in the text do you find the Lord claim that the prophecy is distant future? (Which is what you infer with Christ).

This is what I see. Isaiah asks, "Ask for a sign from ..God.". He then says, "Do you consider it too insignificant..to try the patience of my God. FOR THIS REASON God himself will give you a sign.."

Yes, Ahaz turned down asking for a sign, but to me it seems that Isaiah is saying that God will give him a sign anyway, give him a second chance.

Isaiah condemns Ahaz for not asking of a sign re: the two kings and in the same breath says God will provide a sign. I don't see Isaiah stopping here to explain that this sign will be referring to something completely unrelated. I'm sure all listening to Isaiah would have no idea that God changed subjects on them so abruptly if in fact he did as you suggest.

quote:
There would be a boy child to be born WHICH WOULD KNOW to refuse the evil and to do the good. He would have a simple diet. Though he is to be God with us he would not come eating king's food as a king messiah would be expected to do.

How is it that when the boy knows how to choose good over evil you seem to think it can only refer to Christ? This can refer to any growing child. Isaiah refers only to this as a time tracking piece, i.e. before the child knows how to choose good over evil the two kings will be destroyed..

The rest of the chapter expounds on this and leaves the boy out of it.

quote:
Nice try Eric but it doesn't wash. Unlike this prophecy, the Genesis 16 text to Sarah specifically addresses the woman Sarah directly "you shall call..." because she is being addressed personally in that text. Not so here. The woman is the third person, clearly not present.

You may be correct - This was an assumption on my part. It very well could be that the Isaiah was talking to the king and the young woman was present, only Isaiah did not speak to her directly. It appears that he is talking about a woman that is pregnant or will be very soon. But you are right - I am assuming here. However this theory is equally valid as yours that the woman is not in the room at all.

quote:
There's some ambiguous stuff here in this chapter and in all fairness, I can see where you people are coming from. As I analyze it I am becoming more aware that there are reasons for you to interpret as you do, but I also see why the translators, the writers of the NT and most literal minded scholars support my contention that it is a prophecy of the future child Jesus who did indeed choose to do the good and not the evil.

And, being an ex-Christian, I understand where you are coming from as well. I believe that the story was thought to be of Christ mainly because Matthew translated from the Septuagint (instead of the Hebrew) when he specified that the prophecy was regarding a virgin (because the Greek translation did use "virgin").

But my main point is : Without looking at to NT I don't see any need to interpret Isaiah 7 as anything other than a local prophecy directly related to the two kings as specified in 7:16.

I also have a bias: I've spent time looking at almost all "Jesus" related prophecies and I find a lot that , in their original context, have nothing to do with a messiah at all. Some even referred to those acting evil/sinful. So it is a combination of all of these as a whole that make me suspicious when one is claimed to be speaking of Jesus/a Messiah in their original context.

quote:
It wasn't intended for that purpose. Why? Because:
1. God had already assured them of the defeat via the prophet Isaiah, that they needn't worry.
2. Ahaz, spokesman and head of the then House of David, declined a sign/prophecy for the then and there.
3. The prophecy went way beyond the life of child that would be born then and there, even beyond the reign of Ahaz, when Judah itself would feel the wrath and sword of the Assyrians. The prophecy doesn't actually end until the end of chapter 7

1. Yes, God assured Azah in 7:7. Ok, so why then did he ask Ahaz to ask for a sign in verse 10 if he "needn't worry" ? Why, because we humans are doubtful! And probably the same reasons that God decided to give Ahaz a sign after all.

Unless, of course you take the "sign to be asked for" in verse 10 to also relate to Christ. hmmm. "God will not allow the two kings to attack you. Now, ask for a confirming sign from God [that he will send his son Jesus to save you from your sins]! You refuse? God himself will then give you a sign..When the boy.. The land of the two kings you fear will be destroyed! [And Jesus will come to save you from your sins]." (Sorry, that came out rather comical..this was not my intent) That still doesn't seem to work.. The two don't relate with each other.

2. He declined to ask for one. Isaiah than asked him why he tried the patience of his God. (i.e. God was waiting to give a sign to Ahaz that everything would be ok). This does not mean that Ahaz rejected for the then and there. Ahaz REFUSED TO ASK/TEST/PROVOKE God. (Sidenote: Didn't Jesus do the same when Satan tempted him? Although Jesus was alone at the time, and most likely would not tell people of what happened when he came back (doesn't fit his character), so the wilderness story is most likely lore..) . Bottom line - it does not say that Ahaz refused to accept a sign, only ask for one.

3. Yes it goes way beyond the child (who you assume to be talking about Christ?) and refers to things that will happen after the child is born, but before Christ was born. Thus it cannot be referring to Christ. The extent of the child's purpose is to narrow down the length of the prophecy, i.e. 4-6 years or somewhere in there.

I realize I could be wrong but this is how I see it from my studies..

Peace,
Eric

[This message has been edited by Dilyias, 10-07-2003]

2 online now:	PaulK, Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,905 Year: 4,162/9,624 Month: 1,033/974 Week: 360/286 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0