Isaiah 7

[gilgal]

Isaiah 7:14 - Virgin or maiden? Bethulah or Almah?

Pekah and Rezin the kings of Samaria and Syria were confederate to invade Judah.

I don't know the purpose of announcing the birth of from the virgin which is to happen 400 years later when Ephraim and Syria besiege Jerusalem?

But they didn't succeed in capturing Ahaziah just as Assyria besieged Jerusalem in Isaiah 36-37 in Hezekiah's time.

Isaiah gave 65 years of time for Ephraim and Syria.

I wonder if Hezekiah, Ahaz's son was named on that occasion? Yah is my strength.


2 Kings 18
17And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller's field.

Isaiah 7
3Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;

[Victor]

Hi gilgal,

As for the interpretation of Isa 7:14, do not miss the following text: The Allegorical Sense of Scripture (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0126.html). I found it through Bible-Researcher.com and summarizes my own opinion. It is excellent.

[Rose]

Hi gilgal,

As for the interpretation of Isa 7:14, do not miss the following text: The Allegorical Sense of Scripture (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0126.html). I found it through Bible-Researcher.com and summarizes my own opinion. It is excellent.

Thanks for the link Victor. It is indeed an excellent article, very much touching on ideas that are currently in my mind.

Rose

[gilgal]

Hi gilgal,

As for the interpretation of Isa 7:14, do not miss the following text: The Allegorical Sense of Scripture (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0126.html). I found it through Bible-Researcher.com and summarizes my own opinion. It is excellent.

I wonder what the intent of the Septuagint was that they translated it as parthenos which means virgin.

Maybe Matthew is putting Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14 together?

But also looking at Isaiah 8 and 9 the gospels quote from there as well. I wonder if there is more to Isaiah 7-9 and the gospels. Parallelism?

But I'm trying to understand the plain story which seems quite difficult already.

It's strange that Isaiah 14 prophecies the fall of Babylon but in the end God says he will punish the Assyrian in his land, which I believe happened in Isaiah 36-37 in the 14th year of Hezekiah. So there is a link of spoke 14 since the fourteenth year are mentioned in Genesis 14, 2Kings 18-19, and Isaiah 36-37. 2 Chronicles 32 misses out but it's link by default.

It's strange that King Manasseh was taken captive by the Assyrians but into Babylon. So Babylon must have been a city or an Assyrian province.

[Victor]

I wonder what the intent of the Septuagint was that they translated it as parthenos which means virgin. .

The text I referenced above says:

The translators of the Septuagint did not make a "wrong" translation of "almah" into "parthenos." Recall that the translation was made just a little bit before the sexual revolution in the 1960s. Hence, it was commonly assumed in the culture of the translators that a young woman, assuming she was unmarried, would also be a virgin. The translators of the Septuagint, faced with a choice between the Greek word for "young woman" and Greek word for "virgin" opted, for whatever mysterious reasons, to use the latter. From a purely linguistic viewpoint, it was not the smartest move in the world. But neither was it wildly beyond the pale. Words seldom mean one thing and one thing only.
That translation choice seems to be the fruit of the hidden hand of God in history.



Maybe Matthew is putting Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14 together?

Well, he doesn't make any explicit reference to Gen 3:15 in the first chapter, but being reminded of this passage is helpless when you read Matthew 1.

Now consider: Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14 both sit on Spoke 1 of the Bible Wheel, and Matthew 1 is on Spoke 1 of the Inner Cycle of Matthew and you found a natural connection between the three passages.


But also looking at Isaiah 8 and 9 the gospels quote from there as well. I wonder if there is more to Isaiah 7-9 and the gospels. Parallelism?

There's probably a whole lot of stuff. I now remember a link that Richard found between Isaiah 8 and John 8 (http://www.biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/John/John08.asp).


But I'm trying to understand the plain story which seems quite difficult already.

I understand. Even the first fulfillment is not very clear. I think we after all know very little about Scripture, since most of what is popularly considered "Bible study" is superficial. I remember myself back in 2001 spending hours studying Isaiah 7.

It seems that God gave a sign to the king, assuring him that the Davidic line would be preserved, since a "young woman" (the future queen mother) would produce offspring and this boy would secure the kingdom. That turned out to be true in the person of Hezekiah.


It's strange that Isaiah 14 prophecies the fall of Babylon but in the end God says he will punish the Assyrian in his land, which I believe happened in Isaiah 36-37 in the 14th year of Hezekiah. So there is a link of spoke 14 since the fourteenth year are mentioned in Genesis 14, 2Kings 18-19, and Isaiah 36-37. 2 Chronicles 32 misses out but it's link by default.

Yes! I have noticed this large body of connections on Spoke 14. BTW, you started a thread on it - The Assyrian in Spoke 14 and a few other links (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1710).

As for Isaiah 14, I understand that it speaks of distinct kingdoms - Babylon and ASsyria. Isaiah 13-23 consists of a series of oracles against Gentile nations. So I see chapters 13 and most of 14 as a prophecy against Babylon. By the end of chapter 14, it shifts to Assyria and Philistia. Chapter 15 speaks of Moab, and so it goes.


It's strange that King Manasseh was taken captive by the Assyrians but into Babylon. So Babylon must have been a city or an Assyrian province.

Exactly correct. Note also how for a time the Medo-Persian kingdom also had the city of Babylon as their political hub.

[Silence]

Hello Everyone,
I have been busy the last month and a half moving across the country from Montana to Florida and though I don't have time to discuss it much, I hope you don't mind if I throw out something that I believe hints at the virgin birth of Christ. It isn't accepted by most of the Christians I have shared it with, mainly because it relies more on what is not said than what is said.

In many places the Holy Spirit seems to leave out details that you would think would be included. Every bible teacher I have met agrees that Genesis 22 is a prophetic type of the crucifixion of Jesus (and most agree that the "type" continues straight through to the end of chapter 24 or beyond). In 22:5 Abraham, who is a type of God the Father, tells the two servants "I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." But in 22:19 it says "So Abraham returned to his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-Sheba, and Abraham dwelt at Beer-Sheba." What about Isaac? Why isn't he mentioned as returning with Abraham to the servants? We are left guessing as to what was going through the minds of these servants when Isaac doesn't return with his father.

Same kind of thing happens again happens in chapter 24 where the name of Abraham's chief servant is omitted, because in this narrative the chief servant is a type of the Holy Spirit, who will not speak of Himself. I'm sure you all can find many other examples where what you would expect to be said is purposely omitted to draw attention to something and maybe make us stop to ask why the obvious is not stated.

I believe there is a case of this kind found in Genesis 4:1-2. Verse 1 associates Adam having intercourse with Eve to the birth of Cain. Verse 2 says nothing about Adam knowing Eve again in relation to the birth of Abel. Many commentators believe that Cain and Abel were twins, since the Hebrew word to-sef which in this verse is hiphil - imperfect, can mean "to continue a previous action without interruption". So in that case Abel's birth would also be associated with Adam. But it can also mean "to repeat a previous action, or return to a previous condition, but on a different occasion". You would think that with all the attention given in scripture to occasions where twins are born, that the first occurrence of this would get some mention if Cain and Abel were twins. The first mention of twins in scripture is with Jacob and Esau, the other with Perez and Zerah, both of which cases involved struggles for pre-eminence.

There are other reasons I believe Abel is being held out as a type of Christ in this passage. He is the first shepherd mentioned in scripture, thus being a type of the Chief Shepherd. He is also the first to be described as not laboring under the curse of tilling the ground. Maybe he was born free of the curse Adam was under and Cain was not? I realize this is all kind of "iffy" speculation, but it is intriguing.

[gilgal]

Hello Everyone,
I have been busy the last month and a half moving across the country from Montana to Florida and though I don't have time to discuss it much, I hope you don't mind if I throw out something that I believe hints at the virgin birth of Christ. It isn't accepted by most of the Christians I have shared it with, mainly because it relies more on what is not said than what is said.

In many places the Holy Spirit seems to leave out details that you would think would be included. Every bible teacher I have met agrees that Genesis 22 is a prophetic type of the crucifixion of Jesus (and most agree that the "type" continues straight through to the end of chapter 24 or beyond). In 22:5 Abraham, who is a type of God the Father, tells the two servants "I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." But in 22:19 it says "So Abraham returned to his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-Sheba, and Abraham dwelt at Beer-Sheba." What about Isaac? Why isn't he mentioned as returning with Abraham to the servants? We are left guessing as to what was going through the minds of these servants when Isaac doesn't return with his father.

Same kind of thing happens again happens in chapter 24 where the name of Abraham's chief servant is omitted, because in this narrative the chief servant is a type of the Holy Spirit, who will not speak of Himself. I'm sure you all can find many other examples where what you would expect to be said is purposely omitted to draw attention to something and maybe make us stop to ask why the obvious is not stated.

I believe there is a case of this kind found in Genesis 4:1-2. Verse 1 associates Adam having intercourse with Eve to the birth of Cain. Verse 2 says nothing about Adam knowing Eve again in relation to the birth of Abel. Many commentators believe that Cain and Abel were twins, since the Hebrew word to-sef which in this verse is hiphil - imperfect, can mean "to continue a previous action without interruption". So in that case Abel's birth would also be associated with Adam. But it can also mean "to repeat a previous action, or return to a previous condition, but on a different occasion". You would think that with all the attention given in scripture to occasions where twins are born, that the first occurrence of this would get some mention if Cain and Abel were twins. The first mention of twins in scripture is with Jacob and Esau, the other with Perez and Zerah, both of which cases involved struggles for pre-eminence.

There are other reasons I believe Abel is being held out as a type of Christ in this passage. He is the first shepherd mentioned in scripture, thus being a type of the Chief Shepherd. He is also the first to be described as not laboring under the curse of tilling the ground. Maybe he was born free of the curse Adam was under and Cain was not? I realize this is all kind of "iffy" speculation, but it is intriguing.
This is an amazing study which I intend to listen. I've heard about Isaac before. Thanks for refreshing my memory. This deserves a thread of it's own. My guess is Isaac stayed on the mount. Plus, his name was substituted with "lad". I interpret this as there was the absence of laughter since that's what Isaac meant.