Now let us look at Isaiah chapter 8. God tells Isaiah to write on a scroll, with an ordinary pen, the name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. This means "quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil." Then two priests are to be called in as witnesses.
After that, Isaiah went to the prophetess, presumably his wife, they had sex and she had a son. They named him the above wacky name because god told them to. God also told Isaiah that before the child could say mommy and daddy, the king of Assyria would plunder Damascus and Samaria, the locations of the kingdoms of Aram and Israel. So is this child the same child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14? It is unclear. Why would Isaiah's child be a sign to King Ahaz? That makes no sense to me.
Next is a long poetic passage talking about this invasion. The end of verse 8 is the phrase "O Immanuel" which you may have heard in christmas carols. This is the name that was supposed to be given to the child in Isaiah 7:14 It means "god is with us," a completely different name than the one Isaiah supposedly gave his newborn son. The phrase "god is with us," echoing the name, is also at the end of verse 10.
In verse 18, Isaiah says, "Here I am, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion." Well, whoop-dee-doo. A guy has some kids, which lots of guys all over the world do, and that means they are some kind of special portent of coming destruction? Why should anyone believe him? What difference would it have made if he hadn't had any kids?
Yes, Assyria invaded. But when was this written? Before, or after the fact? It is unknown, but most probably after. If it was written after the invasion, with Isaiah projecting his past self into the future, how are we to know whether or not he actually recieved any message from god beforehand? Nobody was fact checking him then, just as very few people bother to fact check religious figures today. Should we just believe anyone who says they predicted a particular thing would happen and it happened after they said it? Of course, not. This is what makes biblical prophecy so problematic. The likelihood of actual detailed prophetic statements before specific events is highly unlikely.
The chapter ends with a screed against those who would consult mediums and spiritists who talk to the dead. Isaiah says they should enquire of their god instead, meaning him, the supposed mouthpiece of god. Then he goes on to pronounce a fancy curse on those don't consult god (him).
And what does all this have to do with Jesus?
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment