Isaiah 7:14-16

[py3ak]

How are the time markers of Isaiah 7:15-16 to be reconciled with the obviously Messianic import of 7:14? If v.14 speaks of Christ, which seems obvious, then how could the land of the two kings be abandoned before the child would know to reject the evil and choose the good, when that seems to call for the child to be already in a condition to eat butter and honey?

It seems that some commentators tend to skip the difficulty, and others think of a child born to a girl who was a virgin at the time of the prediction, but neither procedure seems to carry irresistible conviction.

 

[MW]

I understand it as follows -- the period of time it takes for the child to progress from virginal conception to an age of legal accountability is the period of time it will take for the contemporary events within the prophet's purview to transpire.

 

[py3ak]

So it speaks of the child as present, even though the virgin did not conceive for several hundred years after the prediction?

 

[TimV]

As a beekeeper you can imagine how often I've thought about this, but I'd like to get more opinions too.

For one thing, any kid can eat butter and curds or butter right away (US recommendations against botulism not withstanding). For another, butter and honey have been EXPENSIVE at every time, in every place, in history except for the last hundred years or so. But at the same time, in a wilderness area, without irrigation and plowed lands, like in a desert or ruined territory, a herd of goats for milk products and a population so low that all the wild hives haven't been plundered could be the only healthy food for a young child.

 

[MW]

So it speaks of the child as present, even though the virgin did not conceive for several hundred years after the prediction?

As a prophetical sign, is that not reasonable?

 

[py3ak]

Indeed it is - I just wanted to make sure I understood.

Tim, Alec Motyer argues, on the basis of v.22, that "butter and honey" are to be understood as the products of an uncultivated land, and thus point to poverty rather than abundance. And so the conclusion is drawn that the predicted child will be a born in a low estate.

 

[T.A.G.]

Couple of things

1. The prophets are meant to be read as a literary or as a book, so remember at the beg. of the chapter we see Isaiah was supposed to take his son. It would be really random if God did not think it was important for isaiah to take his son to speak to Ahaz. It actually is a literary rule that when something like this is mentioned it will have a purpose. I forget what the technical term is called.
2. when he is giving the oracle to ahaz he addresses the davidic dynasty in the plural and then switches up and addresses in the singular. I believe that when addressing in the plural and it says to the house of david, that is what is messianic about this chapter and that is for the future. Then we see when he switches it up in the singular that he is talking to Ahaz and addressing him, when he addresses him and he says "the boy" I believe he is talking about Isaiah's kid. Thus to different prophecies in one chapter.
3. I would submit to you that the hebrew word and greek word (lxx) always means virgin.
4. Remember in reference to the virgin birth, we find out that he will be born in judgment, and isaiahs other child was not born in judgment or suppression.

 

[py3ak]

So it speaks of the child as present, even though the virgin did not conceive for several hundred years after the prediction?

As a prophetical sign, is that not reasonable?

Follow-up question: so vv.15,16 don't really have any connection with the birth of Christ? Obviously it is in view of the coming of Christ that the davidic dynasty is being preserved, but the time indicators and the prediction of the fall of the two kings is not directly related to the great prediction of v.14?

Tyler, I likethe idea that Shearjashub appears with reference to the 200,000 captives returned on Oded's word.

 

[MW]

So it speaks of the child as present, even though the virgin did not conceive for several hundred years after the prediction?

As a prophetical sign, is that not reasonable?

Follow-up question: so vv.15,16 don't really have any connection with the birth of Christ? Obviously it is in view of the coming of Christ that the davidic dynasty is being preserved, but the time indicators and the prediction of the fall of the two kings is not directly related to the great prediction of v.14?

I return to the thought that this is a prophetical sign -- one in which Ahaz showed no interest. There was a deeper theological perspective to his kingship which he did not care to understand, but a theological perspective on which the preservation of his kingdom depended.

The oracle develops in chapters 9-11, and this development means the "Davidic dynasty" cannot be looked upon as a mere after-thought, but an issue of deep significance.

There is a direct relation in the "time-period." This creates an analogy in terms of the prophetic sign. We are being taught that the promise of the kingdom was yet in its minority and must look for a process of development and a terminating point in Immanuel.

 

[py3ak]

I return to the thought that this is a prophetical sign -- one in which Ahaz showed no interest. There was a deeper theological perspective to his kingship which he did not care to understand, but a theological perspective on which the preservation of his kingdom depended.

The oracle develops in chapters 9-11, and this development means the "Davidic dynasty" cannot be looked upon as a mere after-thought, but an issue of deep significance.

There is a direct relation in the "time-period." This creates an analogy in terms of the prophetic sign. We are being taught that the promise of the kingdom was yet in its minority and must look for a process of development and a terminating point in Immanuel.

I think I follow you up until the last paragraph, but there I don't quite understand. Is it that the child's infancy is being compared to the infancy of the kingdom? So the child not knowing to distinguish is like the kingdom at that time?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Here's my reply on a previous occasion.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f43/who-immanuel-18829/#post235107

I make several responses in this thread, not just the first one.

 

[MW]

I think I follow you up until the last paragraph, but there I don't quite understand. Is it that the child's infancy is being compared to the infancy of the kingdom? So the child not knowing to distinguish is like the kingdom at that time?

If the reference to distinguishing good and evil is made for the purpose of showing an age of legal accountability then the analogy should stop at the "time-period," and we should not literally interpret the terms.

 

[py3ak]

I have since discovered that Arthur Jackson takes the view that "within as short a space of time as should be between the birth of this Immanuel, the child Jesus, and his being grown up to the usual years of discretion, both these Kings that were now preparing to make war against Ahaz should be cut off and destroyed. This I find mentioned by the Dutch Annotations; and it seems to me the most satisfying answer." That's the view put forward in the second post on this thread, and it seems the most satisfying to me as well.

 

[dudley]

=py3ak;759255]How are the time markers of Isaiah 7:15-16 to be reconciled with the obviously Messianic import of 7:14? If v.14 speaks of Christ, which seems obvious, then how could the land of the two kings be abandoned before the child would know to reject the evil and choose the good, when that seems to call for the child to be already in a condition to eat butter and honey?


It seems that some commentators tend to skip the difficulty, and others think of a child born to a girl who was a virgin at the time of the prediction, but neither procedure seems to carry irresistible conviction.

Ruben I agree with you regarding this verse.