A sign

[Athetotheist]

Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign..... (Isaiah 7:13-14)

In another thread a while back I brought this up and it wasn't addressed there, so I thought I would give it a thread of its own (apologies if it's been brought up elsewhere):

We also have to remember that this was supposed to be a sign given to the house of Israel. A sign has to be visible. No one of the house of Israel saw Jesus conceived in the womb of Mary, so even if that had happened supernaturally it wouldn't have qualified as a sign.

Another reason to conclude that Isaiah wasn't referring to a divine conception.

[The Tanager]

Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign..... (Isaiah 7:13-14)

In another thread a while back I brought this up and it wasn't addressed there, so I thought I would give it a thread of its own (apologies if it's been brought up elsewhere):

We also have to remember that this was supposed to be a sign given to the house of Israel. A sign has to be visible. No one of the house of Israel saw Jesus conceived in the womb of Mary, so even if that had happened supernaturally it wouldn't have qualified as a sign.

Another reason to conclude that Isaiah wasn't referring to a divine conception.

What do you think the sign was?

[Athetotheist]

Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign..... (Isaiah 7:13-14)

In another thread a while back I brought this up and it wasn't addressed there, so I thought I would give it a thread of its own (apologies if it's been brought up elsewhere):

We also have to remember that this was supposed to be a sign given to the house of Israel. A sign has to be visible. No one of the house of Israel saw Jesus conceived in the womb of Mary, so even if that had happened supernaturally it wouldn't have qualified as a sign.

Another reason to conclude that Isaiah wasn't referring to a divine conception.

What do you think the sign was?

The sign was supposed to be the mother's naming of the child soon to be born [Immanuel] and the brevity of time between his birth and the downfall of the two kings threatening Ahaz.

[The Tanager]

The sign was supposed to be the mother's naming of the child soon to be born [Immanuel] and the brevity of time between his birth and the downfall of the two kings threatening Ahaz.

Do you not think there is any sort of “double fulfillment” going on in chapters 7-9, though? Do you see no connection between the child in 9:6 with the earlier Immanuel mentions in chapters 7 and 8? Would Isaiah not have had such a double fulfillment in mind in his statement in 8:18?

[Athetotheist]

The sign was supposed to be the mother's naming of the child soon to be born [Immanuel] and the brevity of time between his birth and the downfall of the two kings threatening Ahaz.

Do you not think there is any sort of “double fulfillment” going on in chapters 7-9, though? Do you see no connection between the child in 9:6 with the earlier Immanuel mentions in chapters 7 and 8? Would Isaiah not have had such a double fulfillment in mind in his statement in 8:18?

What would be the significance of a "double fulfillment" of a prophecy about a young woman giving birth?

[The Tanager]

Do you not think there is any sort of “double fulfillment” going on in chapters 7-9, though? Do you see no connection between the child in 9:6 with the earlier Immanuel mentions in chapters 7 and 8? Would Isaiah not have had such a double fulfillment in mind in his statement in 8:18?

What would be the significance of a "double fulfillment" of a prophecy about a young woman giving birth?

I mean the larger context of this prophecy. It is definitely about Isaiah's son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, but in referring to this child as Immanuel, "God with us" it seems to also point forward to a more distant time and another child. There is a flow through chapters 7 and 8 into 9:1-7, where a child will be born to us that clearly isn't Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. It's a child named (among other things) Mighty God. Mighty God will be born to us, an ultimate fulfillment of Immanuel, "God with us" which started back with Isaiah's son in chapter 7.

Verses 9:1-7 are about restoration after the punishment begun by Assyria. These verses, building off Isaiah's son coming, speak of a second child, of Israel's Messiah coming as God with us. This is probably at least part of why the translators of the Septuagint translated 'almah which doesn't imply sexual virginity as parthenos, which does imply sexual virginity, recognizing the second Immanuel as no ordinary child. And why Matthew would be fine using 7:14 to point to Jesus' birth.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #6

I mean the larger context of this prophecy. It is definitely about Isaiah's son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, but in referring to this child as Immanuel, "God with us" it seems to also point forward to a more distant time and another child. There is a flow through chapters 7 and 8 into 9:1-7, where a child will be born to us that clearly isn't Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. It's a child named (among other things) Mighty God. Mighty God will be born to us, an ultimate fulfillment of Immanuel, "God with us" which started back with Isaiah's son in chapter 7.

Verses 9:1-7 are about restoration after the punishment begun by Assyria. These verses, building off Isaiah's son coming, speak of a second child, of Israel's Messiah coming as God with us. This is probably at least part of why the translators of the Septuagint translated 'almah which doesn't imply sexual virginity as parthenos, which does imply sexual virginity, recognizing the second Immanuel as no ordinary child. And why Matthew would be fine using 7:14 to point to Jesus' birth.

In Hebrew, a divine name doesn't necessarily mean a divine recipient.

In Genesis 33:20, Abraham calls an altar "El, Eleho Israel" (God, the God of Israel). Was Abraham saying that the altar was the God of Israel?

One of the meanings of the name Eli is "my God". When Eli's parents named him, were they saying that their child was their God?

Since "almah" doesn't imply sexual virginity, the Septuagint author plainly got it wrong.

[The Tanager]

In Hebrew, a divine name doesn't necessarily mean a divine recipient.

In Genesis 33:20, Abraham calls an altar "El, Eleho Israel" (God, the God of Israel). Was Abraham saying that the altar was the God of Israel?

One of the meanings of the name Eli is "my God". When Eli's parents named him, were they saying that their child was their God?

Since "almah" doesn't imply sexual virginity, the Septuagint author plainly got it wrong.

No, Abraham wasn’t saying the altar was God and Eli’s parents weren’t saying their child was God. Isaiah 9:6 isn’t that kind of naming, though. It’s a list of descriptions in name form. And, yes, the (supposedly) 70 or 72 Jewish scholars could have been wrong in their translation, but the point is that they probably translated it as they did because, at least in part, they were considering the larger context of Isaiah 7-9, which speaks to a second child that even the post-Christian Jewish Targum understood to be speaking of the Messiah.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #8

And, yes, the (supposedly) 70 or 72 Jewish scholars could have been wrong in their translation

The 70 Jewish rabbis translated only the Torah, the five books of Moses [Genesis-Deuteronomy]. Who translated the rest of the Tanakh isn't known.

And even where the Jewish Bible does talk about the Messiah, it doesn't logically follow that it has to be talking about a divine Messiah or specifically about Jesus. It's widely accepted among Jews and Christians that the last chapters of Ezekiel are messianic, but what kind of Messiah is found there? A Messiah who brings sin offerings for himself (45:22). Jeremiah 31:34 states that under the new covenant "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord', for they all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them....." The author of Hebrews 8 claims that Jesus established that new covenant but, if so, why are there still Christian ministers teaching their neighbors to "know the Lord" in their churches?

[The Tanager]

And even where the Jewish Bible does talk about the Messiah, it doesn't logically follow that it has to be talking about a divine Messiah or specifically about Jesus.

I agree. But I do think titles like “Mighty God” do heavily shove the rational balance towards a divine Messiah. Whether Jesus is that divine Messiah, as a rational question, would come down to the historicity of the resurrection.

It's widely accepted among Jews and Christians that the last chapters of Ezekiel are messianic, but what kind of Messiah is found there? A Messiah who brings sin offerings for himself (45:22).

There are various widely held interpretations of that passage. Some see the messiah offering sacrifices for his sin. Some see it as messianic, but that the prince is sacrificing on behalf of the people. Some, both Christians and Jews, believe this isn’t messianic.

Jeremiah 31:34 states that under the new covenant "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord', for they all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them....." The author of Hebrews 8 claims that Jesus established that new covenant but, if so, why are there still Christian ministers teaching their neighbors to "know the Lord" in their churches?

I think there are at least two questions here. (1) Why do you think this refers to any act of teaching, rather than everyone having a personal relationship with God through the forgiveness of sins? (2) Why think this establishment was immediate rather than a gradual takeover?