|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dilyias Member (Idle past 1397 days) Posts: 21 From: Minnesota Joined: |
Buzsaw, but I find it interesting that you do not seem to understand what "House of David" refers to here. It refers to King Ahaz, his royal court, and his family - as I will show. (If you do understand this and I misread your posts, I apologize)
The first verses summarizes the story of the two kings who failed to triumph over king Ahaz. We then see the detail.. In 7.2 it states that it was reported to the house of David that the two kings of Syria and Pekah are planning to attack Jerusalem. The house of David (i.e. the kingly/royal court), and all the people (common) were shaken. God asks Isaiah to tell the king to stay calm and not worry about this news. He says that the kings will not prevail. God again (through Isaiah) appears in Ahaz's court to tell him to ask for a sign, and Ahaz says he will not put God to the test. Then Isaiah (on behalf of God) replies to Ahaz (possibly to the whole court that is there listening) and asks if it is too much to ask for a sign. He then most likely points to a woman standing in the room and says, "here, this young woman is (or is about to be) pregnant and will give birth to a son. You (talking to the woman) will name him..." Quick point here - I chose to translate this as "you will call him" because this Hebrew verb in this context makes the most sense translated this way, as it was in, for example Genesis 16:11 where the Lord talks to Abram's wife "You are now pregnant and are about to give birth to a son. You are to call him Ishmael". It makes even more sense when you think about how all of this was a discourse in the court in front of king Ahaz and the royal court. I.E. Isaiah is standing before the king and his advisors and probably many others. Isaiah then goes on to say "Before the child knows how to reject evil and choose what is right.." which refers to the time when a child begins to know right and wrong and have a conscience. Children were expected to choose right when reaching a certain age. This does not , as you claim, infer that the child can only or would only choose right (supernaturally or not) - - it only speaks of a period where a child can recognize how to choose right from wrong. Isaiah then continues, "..the land of the two kings (mentioned above) you (king Ahaz, representing the entire house of Ahaz and his people) fear will abandoned." What good would this prophecy do to a House of Israel that was worried about being attacked by two kings if it spoke about some messiah hundreds of years later? -Eric
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dilyias Member (Idle past 1397 days) Posts: 21 From: Minnesota Joined: |
Amlodhi,
Let me be the first to welcome you to this forum. Thank you!
However, the grammatical suffix (which is used to justify the "you" translation) actually indicates the 2nd person, masculine , singular. IOW, it has been suggested that since the "child/sign" would necessarily need to be a prominent figure in the life of Ahaz, that it was one of Ahaz's wifes or concubines that Isaiah referred to as "the young woman". Consequently, it would be Ahaz himself (masc. sing.)whom Isaiah addressed as "you". Interesting, I had not thought of it as the king's wife...but yes that makes a lot of sense. I chose feminine because in other parts of the OT that form referred to 2nd person feminine.
Namaste' Are you Buddhist? -Eric
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dilyias Member (Idle past 1397 days) Posts: 21 From: Minnesota Joined: |
--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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024