Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I just wanted to say that I did not expect this type of response. This rocks. I am reading it all and learning.
Thanks to the both of you.
Thanks to the both of you.
Double fulfillment
- Thread starter Notthemama1984
- Start date
- Status
Hilasmos
Puritan Board Freshman
Yea, I admit I am reliant on them, and if they are wrong and it hast to be "virgin," then I concur. However, is it not also possible, if we take it strictly as virgin, that the prophetess could have "married" Isaiah during the "interim" between his statement in 7:14 and its fulfillment in ch.8?
Thus, "the virgin will conceive," doesn't have to mean immaculate conception, but a virgin will get married and conceive.
Moreover, Is. 8:8 returns back to the concept of "Immanuel," which if ch. 8 is a different "pericope" than the events of 7:14-15, than I don't follow.
What I meant by this is that one can determine (assuming young woman), or I guess Virgin (following the 2nd wife concept) that there will be a young woman who gives birth to a: 1) child; 2) called Immanuel; 3) who's life will serve as a sign to Ahaz, for he won't know enough to refuse good and evil before his enemies are destroyed.
All that is from Chapter 7. All I meant was that Chapter 8 gives more information about about the what and who of chapter 7, assuming I'm right.
As it is:
1) Defining Almah is key (or taking a 2nd wife view)
2) And, what the significance of the parallel between 8:4 and 7:16 intimates
Ok, clarify for me...after the events of 8:4 become true, are you saying thats the end of Israel's threat, or the two kings threat?
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this.
Hilasmos,
It's been a helpful discussion. I've been the long-winded one. Thanks for the patience.
questions:
Could the woman have been a virgin at the time of 7:14, and married Isaiah in the meantime? Obviously, not a solution that satisfies me, although it removes the one problem of Isaiah referring to a married woman in language typically (if not exclusively) reserved for the unmarried. I'd have some serious issues with the concept, not least for which there is no notice of it, and no apparent reason for it, except to provide a leap over a serious linguistic hurdle. If we're willing to create a second wife to keep the interpretation, why not just stick with the "unique designation" for the original wife. Feels like less of a stretch to me.
What about the return of the name "Emmanuel" in 8:8? I've tried to indicate that there are a number of ways these two chapters relate. There are linguistic parallels and thematic parallels. At the same time, I see them describing two separate lessons. The first lesson was an evangelistic call to believe the saving power of God. It ends bleakly, with the promise of Assyrian terror looming. The second involves a separate series of prophetic acts, and contains first a prophecy of judgment, interspersed with a strong message of hope for the remnant.
I think Isaiah addresses THE Emmanuel, Christ, in his divinity. He is allowed to address him even now. He goes on to envision the victory led by this champion in response to the attacks on his church, see v10. In this, I think Isaiah is seeing the eschaton, not an immediate overwhelming victory over the world-wide powers.
Relying on ch8 to read ch7, further explanation. I see what you mean, but I still think you conclude too much based on what follows, then you go back and solidify your reading of ch7. There may be times for that approach, but I don't see it here. Because if Isaiah has written (or compiled) his book to be read like an ordinary work, then what comes before gives us the foundation for what comes later, there's more "explanatory power" in what has already come, for what comes next, than vice versa.
If this be true, then you can probably see why 8:8 looks exactly like Isaiah addressing the divine Emmanuel to me. Because on my reading, Isaiah has already encountered this Christ-figure under this name in the previous chapter, and that knowledge starts immediately to color his visions.
Disappearing threats. The twin threats are Israel (Ten Tribes) and Syria/Damascus/Rezin (people/city/king). Both these petty powers are steamrolled by Assyria/Nineveh in less than three years. Both become vassal principalities of the overlord, Tiglath Pilezer. Hoshea, as puppet-king in Samaria is in no position to raise armies, etc. He tries to reach out to Egypt after 9 years to ally himself with them, and when Assyria's king hears about it, he drops in for a visit, shoves Hoshea in a dark hole forever, and depopulates the land of many Israelites, resettles it with foreigners.
So, the major THREATS never entirely disappear for Judah: next its Assyria, after them its mainly Babylon (with Egypt always lurking down south). But by 731BC, neither Israel nor Syria is a direct threat to Judah's well-being.
Hope its not too lengthy, this.
It's been a helpful discussion. I've been the long-winded one. Thanks for the patience.
questions:
Could the woman have been a virgin at the time of 7:14, and married Isaiah in the meantime? Obviously, not a solution that satisfies me, although it removes the one problem of Isaiah referring to a married woman in language typically (if not exclusively) reserved for the unmarried. I'd have some serious issues with the concept, not least for which there is no notice of it, and no apparent reason for it, except to provide a leap over a serious linguistic hurdle. If we're willing to create a second wife to keep the interpretation, why not just stick with the "unique designation" for the original wife. Feels like less of a stretch to me.
What about the return of the name "Emmanuel" in 8:8? I've tried to indicate that there are a number of ways these two chapters relate. There are linguistic parallels and thematic parallels. At the same time, I see them describing two separate lessons. The first lesson was an evangelistic call to believe the saving power of God. It ends bleakly, with the promise of Assyrian terror looming. The second involves a separate series of prophetic acts, and contains first a prophecy of judgment, interspersed with a strong message of hope for the remnant.
I think Isaiah addresses THE Emmanuel, Christ, in his divinity. He is allowed to address him even now. He goes on to envision the victory led by this champion in response to the attacks on his church, see v10. In this, I think Isaiah is seeing the eschaton, not an immediate overwhelming victory over the world-wide powers.
Relying on ch8 to read ch7, further explanation. I see what you mean, but I still think you conclude too much based on what follows, then you go back and solidify your reading of ch7. There may be times for that approach, but I don't see it here. Because if Isaiah has written (or compiled) his book to be read like an ordinary work, then what comes before gives us the foundation for what comes later, there's more "explanatory power" in what has already come, for what comes next, than vice versa.
If this be true, then you can probably see why 8:8 looks exactly like Isaiah addressing the divine Emmanuel to me. Because on my reading, Isaiah has already encountered this Christ-figure under this name in the previous chapter, and that knowledge starts immediately to color his visions.
Disappearing threats. The twin threats are Israel (Ten Tribes) and Syria/Damascus/Rezin (people/city/king). Both these petty powers are steamrolled by Assyria/Nineveh in less than three years. Both become vassal principalities of the overlord, Tiglath Pilezer. Hoshea, as puppet-king in Samaria is in no position to raise armies, etc. He tries to reach out to Egypt after 9 years to ally himself with them, and when Assyria's king hears about it, he drops in for a visit, shoves Hoshea in a dark hole forever, and depopulates the land of many Israelites, resettles it with foreigners.
So, the major THREATS never entirely disappear for Judah: next its Assyria, after them its mainly Babylon (with Egypt always lurking down south). But by 731BC, neither Israel nor Syria is a direct threat to Judah's well-being.
Hope its not too lengthy, this.
Hilasmos
Puritan Board Freshman
Right, I follow that Judah never gets off the hook, as they will soon face Assyria and then Babylon.
My question was more along the lines of:
In 7:16 the two kings are no longer a threat "before the boy knows..."
In 8:4 Damascus (Syria) and Samaria (Israel) will be plundered "before the boy knows..."
Are you suggesting that 8:4 is only part of the fulfillment of 7:16? That is, the plundering of Damascus and Samaria doesn't result, in those "isolated events," as "removing the threat of the two kings."
If so, we have a timeline issue. Since, the two kings will be removed according to 7:16, and if 8:4 is chronoligically latter than 7:16 and Shaer., why are Damascus and Samaria still standing until before Maher. "knows"?
Unless I misunderstood your history lesson, which is highly likely, I am not following. Does the "significance," or lack there of, of my question make sense?
-----Added 12/4/2008 at 02:20:00 EST-----
And, concerning Immanuel, I still agree with you that it refers ultimately to Christ; but, in my opinion, that still doesn't negate on its own that Isaiah could have used Maher. as a present "type" or mild fulfillment of that for Judah. Symbolizing in shadows and weakness what will ultimately reach reality in Christ.
-----Added 12/4/2008 at 02:29:45 EST-----
I don't think I negated the "explanatory power" of ch7. Doesn't the fulfillment of a prophecy always shed more light on the prophecy, without negating its explanatory power? Doesn't Is. 53 still mean what it means, even though in its fulfillment in Christ there is a large elaboration on what was mean't? If ch7 is the prophecy, and ch8 contains its first fulfillment, I don't have a problem reading both chapters in light of the other.
Hilasmos,
I'll mainly address the fact that I think 7:16 and 8:4 are referring to the same basic ruination, one that is basically effected by 731BC.
The child in Isaiah's arms in 7:16 is a baby, I'm just guessing, but probably only a few weeks or months old. OK, the smallest distance between my own kids is 17 mo., little under a year-and-a-half. If Isaiah has another kid in less than 2 years, then that kid is still born before the cities/kings of Samaria and Damascus are powers no more, as both verses indicate.
In fact, it is child no.1 (in my opinion) which Isaiah says will not yet show clear signs of being able to listen to his conscience, before the fulfillment.
And, it is child no.2, Maher., born at a minimum of nine months later (but not, in my opinion, more than two years) which Isaiah says will not even be able to say "mama" and "dada" before the same fulfillment.
That's before two different things that the child(ren) know(s).
Now, to me, the second sign says that child of interest will be even younger than in the first instance.
1) Obviously (clear to others) first child is able to listen to his conscience and receive its judgment cognitively --> I'd say that's typically by age 3, if not a little earlier.
2) Second child able to say "mama" and "dada" --> if my own kids are any indication, I think most kids by age 1 can do that.
In other words, I think the second sign, when compared to the first, gives me another reason to think they refer to different children. Both kids, in my opinion, will be less than 3 years old when this all blows over (734BC-731BC). It's a follow on prophecy to the first, so I think its' given to confirm that the time to the northern kingdom's downfall is imminent.
___________________________
About referring to Maher. as "Immanuel": that's your privilege. It makes sense IF you hold, as you do, to 7:14ff as all referring to the birth of Maher. I'm of another mind, as you know.
___________________________
I don't disagree that all Scripture sheds light on the rest of Scripture, whether prior or post. My point was more along the lines of understanding ch7 as is. Then ch8 moves us along. I still feel as though your preference for making chs 7&8 literally unified, as opposed to merely related, means that ch7 MUST be interpreted in the light of ch8, and I don't feel any of that sense of mystery when I have finished ch7; ch8 is simply more expansive.
Peace.
I'll mainly address the fact that I think 7:16 and 8:4 are referring to the same basic ruination, one that is basically effected by 731BC.
The child in Isaiah's arms in 7:16 is a baby, I'm just guessing, but probably only a few weeks or months old. OK, the smallest distance between my own kids is 17 mo., little under a year-and-a-half. If Isaiah has another kid in less than 2 years, then that kid is still born before the cities/kings of Samaria and Damascus are powers no more, as both verses indicate.
In fact, it is child no.1 (in my opinion) which Isaiah says will not yet show clear signs of being able to listen to his conscience, before the fulfillment.
And, it is child no.2, Maher., born at a minimum of nine months later (but not, in my opinion, more than two years) which Isaiah says will not even be able to say "mama" and "dada" before the same fulfillment.
That's before two different things that the child(ren) know(s).
Now, to me, the second sign says that child of interest will be even younger than in the first instance.
1) Obviously (clear to others) first child is able to listen to his conscience and receive its judgment cognitively --> I'd say that's typically by age 3, if not a little earlier.
2) Second child able to say "mama" and "dada" --> if my own kids are any indication, I think most kids by age 1 can do that.
In other words, I think the second sign, when compared to the first, gives me another reason to think they refer to different children. Both kids, in my opinion, will be less than 3 years old when this all blows over (734BC-731BC). It's a follow on prophecy to the first, so I think its' given to confirm that the time to the northern kingdom's downfall is imminent.
___________________________
About referring to Maher. as "Immanuel": that's your privilege. It makes sense IF you hold, as you do, to 7:14ff as all referring to the birth of Maher. I'm of another mind, as you know.
___________________________
I don't disagree that all Scripture sheds light on the rest of Scripture, whether prior or post. My point was more along the lines of understanding ch7 as is. Then ch8 moves us along. I still feel as though your preference for making chs 7&8 literally unified, as opposed to merely related, means that ch7 MUST be interpreted in the light of ch8, and I don't feel any of that sense of mystery when I have finished ch7; ch8 is simply more expansive.
Peace.
Last edited:
Hilasmos
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks Rev. Bruce
-----Added 12/4/2008 at 10:23:10 EST-----
There are a lot of Reformed people that adhere to double fulfillment too.
-----Added 12/4/2008 at 10:23:10 EST-----
Good topic, I was taught a lot of double fulfillment stuff I have a lot of Disp. friends, but I am here to learn.
There are a lot of Reformed people that adhere to double fulfillment too.
- Status
