Today we finish up the Christmas posts with Isaiah chapter 9.
After chapter 8 ended with a dark curse for those who do not speak according to god's word, verse 9:1 says its not the end of the world. "In the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles...The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the shadow of death a light has dawned." Matthew 4:13-16 claims this was a prophecy that was fulfilled when Jesus lived and preached in Galilee. However, there are no contemporary extrabiblical sources that place Jesus in that place at that time. The (unknown) author of Matthew could very well have written his story with an eye to choosing vague prophetic sounding passages that could do double duty.
The passage goes on to talk of the gentile nation (In the Galilee region) being enlarged and increasing their joy. The yoke of oppression will be lifted and war time clothing burnt. According to my study bible this did happen, kind of. Around 701 BCE, the Assyrian army lost its hold on the region. If the author of Isaiah was deliberately projecting his writing into the future, as though he was writing from the past, he would have known that. But what does that have to do with Jesus? Why do some verses of Isaiah apply to Jesus and others do not? Shouldn't real prophecy be internally consistent? The easy answer is that the authors of the New Testament gospels picked and chose the ones that would help enforce the story they wanted to tell.
Verses 6-7 says that this improvement in the region will happen... "for to us a child is born, to us a son is given..." Okay, who is US here? Ahaz and his young woman, or Isaiah and his prophetess? And what son? Immanuel or Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz? Or is it talking about Jesus as Christians claim? Could it have two meanings?
More about this child from verses 6-7: "and the government will be on his shoulders." Did that happen to Jesus? Nope. "And he will be called Wonderful Counselor." Did that happen to Jesus?
Not anywhere in the New Testament. Christians do call him that now, BECAUSE of this passage. He will also supposedly be called "Mighty God." Was Jesus ever called that? Not in the Bible. "Everlasting," nope. "Father," nope. "Prince of Peace," nope. If he was ever called any of these things outside of the bible, it was usually because someone had read this passage and assumed it was talking of Jesus.
Verse 7 says "of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end." Did that happen? First of all Jesus never had a government, unless you count the government of the Catholic church and the Vatican. I hope you don't. It certainly has not had a reign of peace. "He will reign on David's throne." Did that happen to Jesus? No. However, the gospels tried to get around that by claiming Jesus had direct lineage from David, and christians say that he "reigns" with god in heaven on the "true throne of David." It's all metaphorical don't you know. At least the parts christians find convenient to be metaphorical. The virgin birth, that's literal.
Continuing on in verse 7, the son will establish and uphold David's kingdom "with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever." Did that happen? Uh, no. In fact it didn't happen to the Jewish nation after Assyria left either, they were eventually conquered by the Babylonians. There was no justice and righteousness forever, and no peace without end. This section ends by saying "the zeal of the lord almighty will accomplish this." What happened? The prophecy failed, no matter who it was about.
We will not finish chapter 9 because it is blatantly obvious that it can not be applied to Jesus in any way. But I urge you to continue reading to the end. It's got a lot of interesting stuff about the wrath of god against Israel and false prophets. (I think we can assume the author of Isaiah does not consider himself one. )There is even a mention of cannibalism at the end of the chapter.
Merry Christmas to all who celebrate and Warm Wishes to all my readers. Until next week.
Showing posts with label Christmas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christmas. Show all posts
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Isaiah chapters 7-9, part 1
Before I continue on with my study of hell, I thought I would do my "Christmas" post. We will look at Isaiah 7-9 because parts of it are often brought out at Christmas, as a supposed prophesies of the birth of Jesus.
Verse 7:14 says, "Therefore the lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel." Matthew 1:23 says that Mary concieved Jesus by the holy spirit to fulfill this passage in Isaiah. So, is this passage really prophesying the birth of Jesus?
First of all, If we go to the beginning of chapter 7 and read through the chapter , we see Ahaz, the king of Judah, is in a war with the kings of Aram and Israel. Isaiah is told by God that the kings of Aram and Israel will not conquer Judah. If they do not stand firm in their faith, they will not stand at all. God offerred Ahaz a sign that this would happen. Ahaz didn't want a sign from god, so god got irritated and gave him a sign anyway.The sign is the birth of the previously mentioned child. Notably, before this child "knows enough to to reject the wrong and choose the right" the armies of Assyria would invade the land and destroy Aram and Israel. (In fancy poetic language)
Does this sound like it has anything to do with a baby to be born at least 700 years later? Of course not. What about the virgin who was supposed to have this child? Who would be the child's father if this child was to be born before the Assyrian army came? Surely not god. So then, his mother wasn't actually a virgin when the child was born, if it had a human father. It turns out that this passage in Hebrew uses the hebrew word "almah", which has been translated here as virgin. However, this word can also denote a young, newly married woman. She obviously didn't remain a virgin. It is unclear who the father was supposed to be. My study bible suggests it might have been Isaiah, but it makes more sense to me if it was Ahaz. At any rate, the child was supposed to be born in that time period.
Notice that this young child will not yet know right from wrong when the Assyrian army comes. Was there a time when Jesus did not know right from wrong? Was he divine or not? Was he the son of god or not? Was he god in the flesh or not? Is this whole prophecy about Jesus, or was just the virgin part about Jesus? How does that work? How would anyone know which parts were supposed to be about a coming child of god/christ/messiah and which parts were not? What invasion was Jesus's birth supposed to be a sign of? What nations would be invaded before he was old enough to reject the wrong and choose the right?
Plus, when was Jesus ever called Immanuel? Well if you search the New Testament, you will come up empty. Matthew 1:23 is the only place that name occurs and there he is quoting Isaiah. Could it be that Matthew just cherry picked a verse about a young woman having a child and said "See, this proves Jesus was prophesied about?" But was he?
What do Jews have to say about this passage found in their scriptures? (Link) The link shows a similar line of thought to what I just covered. If Isiah 7:14 is not a prophecy, and Jesus was not born of a virgin or called Immanuel, then the author of the book of Matthew made that part up on purpose to try to convince his audience of the divinity of Jesus. Could he have made up the whole book, most of it, or other parts? Was Jesus even born at all? The author of Matthew was not an eyewitness to the birth, and we don't even know who he was or where he got his information. Why should we believe him?
More to come.
Verse 7:14 says, "Therefore the lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel." Matthew 1:23 says that Mary concieved Jesus by the holy spirit to fulfill this passage in Isaiah. So, is this passage really prophesying the birth of Jesus?
First of all, If we go to the beginning of chapter 7 and read through the chapter , we see Ahaz, the king of Judah, is in a war with the kings of Aram and Israel. Isaiah is told by God that the kings of Aram and Israel will not conquer Judah. If they do not stand firm in their faith, they will not stand at all. God offerred Ahaz a sign that this would happen. Ahaz didn't want a sign from god, so god got irritated and gave him a sign anyway.The sign is the birth of the previously mentioned child. Notably, before this child "knows enough to to reject the wrong and choose the right" the armies of Assyria would invade the land and destroy Aram and Israel. (In fancy poetic language)
Does this sound like it has anything to do with a baby to be born at least 700 years later? Of course not. What about the virgin who was supposed to have this child? Who would be the child's father if this child was to be born before the Assyrian army came? Surely not god. So then, his mother wasn't actually a virgin when the child was born, if it had a human father. It turns out that this passage in Hebrew uses the hebrew word "almah", which has been translated here as virgin. However, this word can also denote a young, newly married woman. She obviously didn't remain a virgin. It is unclear who the father was supposed to be. My study bible suggests it might have been Isaiah, but it makes more sense to me if it was Ahaz. At any rate, the child was supposed to be born in that time period.
Notice that this young child will not yet know right from wrong when the Assyrian army comes. Was there a time when Jesus did not know right from wrong? Was he divine or not? Was he the son of god or not? Was he god in the flesh or not? Is this whole prophecy about Jesus, or was just the virgin part about Jesus? How does that work? How would anyone know which parts were supposed to be about a coming child of god/christ/messiah and which parts were not? What invasion was Jesus's birth supposed to be a sign of? What nations would be invaded before he was old enough to reject the wrong and choose the right?
Plus, when was Jesus ever called Immanuel? Well if you search the New Testament, you will come up empty. Matthew 1:23 is the only place that name occurs and there he is quoting Isaiah. Could it be that Matthew just cherry picked a verse about a young woman having a child and said "See, this proves Jesus was prophesied about?" But was he?
What do Jews have to say about this passage found in their scriptures? (Link) The link shows a similar line of thought to what I just covered. If Isiah 7:14 is not a prophecy, and Jesus was not born of a virgin or called Immanuel, then the author of the book of Matthew made that part up on purpose to try to convince his audience of the divinity of Jesus. Could he have made up the whole book, most of it, or other parts? Was Jesus even born at all? The author of Matthew was not an eyewitness to the birth, and we don't even know who he was or where he got his information. Why should we believe him?
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)