a question about the prophecy of Isaiah

The general understanding of prophecies like this is that they have two fulfilments -- one at the time, and a later Messianic one.

Desperate Christian said:

Isaiah 7:13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.

i know that this sign is a prophecy about the Messiah to come but i don't understand something: how can the birth of the Messiah that is a later event be a sign of something before?

Click to expand...

You're not reading this correctly. The prophecy is to "the house of Israel".

Ahaz refused to ask for a sign...so God gave a sign to "the house of Israel" rather than to Ahaz.

So this is a future prophecy...it was a sign Israel had to look for.

Radagast said:

The general understanding of prophecies like this is that they have two fulfilments -- one at the time, and a later Messianic one.

Click to expand...

Right. The prophecy in its original context has to have been for Isaiah's time. While the child is still young, things will happen to two lands that were then threatening Israel.

The NT often uses OT events as patterns to understand NT events. E.g. John the Baptist is described as Elijah. Is 53 almost certainly had a reference at the time, but is properly applied to Jesus. Paul sees Jesus as a new Adam. Similarly, Matthew applies Is 7:14 to Jesus. Since God inspired Scripture, it's quite reasonable to say that God intended both uses.

The sign given in Isaiah time is shown here...

Isaiah 8:2-3

King James Version (KJV)

2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

InSpiritInTruth said:

The sign given in Isaiah time is shown here...

Isaiah 8:2-3

King James Version (KJV)

2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

Click to expand...

I've heard this applied to that before but I'm not so sure I agree based on 7.

Isaiah 7:10-12
10 Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!”

I think we can agree here that Ahaz refused to ask for a sign. Since Ahaz refuses, God gives him a sign anyway so Isaiah says:
Isaiah 7-13:
13 Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
15 He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
16 For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

This is the prophecy of Jesus birth. Now...explain what makes you figure Isaiah 8:1-4 figures in this? I don't get the connection.

ebedmelech said:

I've heard this applied to that before but I'm not so sure I agree based on 7.

Isaiah 7:10-12
10 Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!”

I think we can agree here that Ahaz refused to ask for a sign. Since Ahaz refuses, God gives him a sign anyway so Isaiah says:
Isaiah 7-13:
13 Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
15 He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
16 For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

This is the prophecy of Jesus birth. Now...explain what makes you figure Isaiah 8:1-4 figures in this? I don't get the connection.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree Isaiah 7:14-16 is the prophecy of Messiah, but I also believe the Lord gave another sign to confirm His words to Ahaz. Look what the Lord said prior to asking Ahaz for the sign...

Isaiah 7:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.


And then look at what the Lord said in Isaiah 8:4;" For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Syria."

So the Lord was using this prophetess' conception, and birth, as a sign for the people of that time. That's why Isaiah went with witnesses to record the event, and also confirm the prophecy of that time; which would also preceed the future prophecy of the fall of Samaria."

InSpiritInTruth said:

Yes I agree Isaiah 7:14-16 is the prophecy of Messiah, but I also believe the Lord gave another sign to confirm His words to Ahaz. Look what the Lord said prior to asking Ahaz for the sign...

Isaiah 7:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.


And then look at what the Lord said in Isaiah 8:4;" For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Syria."

So the Lord was using this prophetess' conception, and birth, as a sign for the people of that time. That's why Isaiah went with witnesses to record the event, and also confirm the prophecy of that time; which would also preceed the future prophecy of the fall of Samaria."

Click to expand...

I'll look at that.

Desperate Christian said:

Isaiah 7:13 Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.

I know that this sign is a prophecy about the Messiah to come but i don't understand something: how can the birth of the Messiah that is a later event be a sign of something before?

Click to expand...

It is not. Prophetic signs always have a near to the time fulfillment (which is never exact) which points us to the future fulfillment. A sign is not indicative of any natural event though a natural event may be used as part of a sign. The sign is the almah (maiden) conceiving and bearing a son and people calling this son God with us (this is what "shem" translated name means it does not mean this would be his literal name).

Now who is the near time son? This is a problem because of the use of the definite article in Hebrew when it says "the" almah (maiden)...in ancient Hebrew the use of the definite article means the almah is not identified and probably not known to either Isaiah or Ahaz...a similar application in English is if I said to you go and pick "a" melon out of my garden...I know one is there you will pick but which one you will pick is unknowable to me and you.

Just some feedback...

Paul

pshun2404 said:

It is not. Prophetic signs always have a near to the time fulfillment (which is never exact) which points us to the future fulfillment. A sign is not indicative of any natural event though a natural event may be used as part of a sign. The sign is the almah (maiden) conceiving and bearing a son and people calling this son God with us (this is what "shem" translated name means it does not mean this would be his literal name).

Now who is the near time son? This is a problem because of the use of the definite article in Hebrew when it says "the" almah (maiden)...in ancient Hebrew the use of the definite article means the almah is not identified and probably not known to either Isaiah or Ahaz...a similar application in English is if I said to you go and pick "a" melon out of my garden...I know one is there you will pick but which one you will pick is unknowable to me and you.

Just some feedback...

Paul

Click to expand...

I can't say I agree with your explanation here. You're denying what the passage says in my view.

This is what it says:
Isaiah 7:10-12
10 Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!”

Ahaz is told by Isaiah to ask for a sign from God, but Ahaz refuses to ask.

It goes on:
Isaiah 7:13

13 Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Isaiah tells us the SIGN is a "virgin being with child"...which was Mary. Therefore the SIGN that was given to "the house of David" was very much future! Mary was miraculously found to be with child...yet she was a virgin. THAT IS THE SIGN! The shame of it, is that much of Israel had gotten so far from God that they didn't realize Mary was the sign, so they missed it. If the people knew that prophecy they would have recognized Jesus to be that fulfillment.

Matthew tells us that this was the fulfillment of that:
22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”

It's pretty explicit there. I have to ask why are you saying it's not?

You said: "Prophetic signs always have a near to the time fulfillment (which is never exact) which points us to the future fulfillment."

That is not always true. There are several prophecies given that took literally years before the sign of that prophecy came about.

The reason people think the sign was short term is because in the next two verses, Isaiah says that before the child is grown, Assyria will have conquered Israel.

ebedmelech said:

I can't say I agree with your explanation here. You're denying what the passage says in my view.

This is what it says:
Isaiah 7:10-12
10 Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!”

Ahaz is told by Isaiah to ask for a sign from God, but Ahaz refuses to ask.

It goes on:
Isaiah 7:13

13 Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Isaiah tells us the SIGN is a "virgin being with child"...which was Mary. Therefore the SIGN that was given to "the house of David" was very much future! Mary was miraculously found to be with child...yet she was a virgin. THAT IS THE SIGN! The shame of it, is that much of Israel had gotten so far from God that they didn't realize Mary was the sign, so they missed it. If the people knew that prophecy they would have recognized Jesus to be that fulfillment.

Matthew tells us that this was the fulfillment of that:
22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”

It's pretty explicit there. I have to ask why are you saying it's not?

You said: "Prophetic signs always have a near to the time fulfillment (which is never exact) which points us to the future fulfillment."

That is not always true. There are several prophecies given that took literally years before the sign of that prophecy came about.

Click to expand...

Well first off I am NOT saying this was not referring to Mary and the virgin birth, that is exactly what it is referring to but in this case there was also a near time fulfillment Ahaz would recognize whether we know of it or not. Because He says the Lord Himself shall give YOU a sign...

And because it is a sign it is something outside of the natural order (in my opinion and I know some disagree) plus it could not be one of Ahaz's or Isaiah's natural children because natural births via a husband and wife would negate the use of the word Almah (Isaiah uses the word bethullah strictly as referring to cities and principalities) for neither would be a maiden

Paul

pshun2404 said:

Well first off I am NOT saying this was not referring to Mary and the virgin birth, that is exactly what it is referring to but in this case there was also a near time fulfillment Ahaz would recognize whether we know of it or not. Because He says the Lord Himself shall give YOU a sign...

And because it is a sign it is something outside of the natural order (in my opinion and I know some disagree) plus it could not be one of Ahaz's or Isaiah's natural children because natural births via a husband and wife would negate the use of the word Almah (Isaiah uses the word bethullah strictly as referring to cities and principalities) for neither would be a maiden

Paul

Click to expand...

I'm not contending with you here...but I am trying to understand your reasoning. When Ahaz refused to ask a sign the prophecy isn't spoken to him. Isaiah speaks the prophecy to the "house of David" which is a term for Israel.

As I work through this I'm looking at it to determine if it is a double fulfillment, which is why I'm examining what you said.

I'm not seeing how the event of chapter 8:1-4 is connected. From what I'm reading it's another prophecy concerning Damascus and Samaria.

I have heard it said this is part of the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy, but I don't see that.

I'm trying to nail this down for my understanding.

ebedmelech said:

You're not reading this correctly. The prophecy is to "the house of Israel".

Ahaz refused to ask for a sign...so God gave a sign to "the house of Israel" rather than to Ahaz.

So this is a future prophecy...it was a sign Israel had to look for.

Click to expand...

You are correct, my mistake...only then it is to the House of Judah (Kingdom of Judah...later called Jewish people), David was of the line of Judah, the House of Israel on the other hand in the prophets is the Kingdom of Israel...the northern tribes which were dispersed by the Assyrians. So yes, it should have been a sign to the Jewish people of His time (and it was for many).

Paul