Page 1 of 1
Question about prophecies
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:12 pm
by bearbite
Hi, I was wondering if anyone can help me with Isaiah 7:14-16 and Micah 5:5-6. I am a Christian, and I am trying to learn more about theology.
“For this cause the Lord himself will give you a sign; a young woman is now with child, and she will give birth to a son, and she will give him the name Immanuel. Butter and honey will be his food, when he is old enough to make a decision between evil and good. For before the child is old enough to make a decision between evil and good, the land whose two kings you are now fearing will have become waste.” (Isaiah 7:14-16)
I know that the prophecy is about the coming of Jesus. I have trouble understanding it because it sounds like Jesus would be sent right away and the two kings would be defeated because of Him, but Jesus didn't come to do that. One bible study note said that the prophecy was said at that time was to tell King Ahaz that the Messiah is proof that Israel will be preserved. That makes sense to me, but then how would it make sense with “the land whose two kings you are now fearing will have become waste”? Is the verse used to compare the success of Israel verses the success of the the enemies? I guess that makes sense, but I just want opinion or other solutions…
“And this shall be peace, when the Assyrian comes into our land and treads upon our soil, that we will raise against him seven shepherds and eight princes of men;
they shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword; and they shall deliver us from the Assyrian when he comes into our land and treads within our border.” (Micah 5:5-6)
This is also another prophecy about Jesus. Here it seems like He will conquer Assyria, but He didn't. I read in a bible study note that “Assyria” is the term used as “enemy”, for Assyria was seen as the biggest enemy to Israel, is that correct? But then, if Assyria is just a word for enemy, what exactly does the verse mean? Does it just mean that Jesus will protect us from our enemy? I mean that sounds kind of misleading for the Israelites, since Assyria didn't exist when Jesus came. I mean, would the Jews misunderstand?
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:31 am
by RGeeB
The Isaiah prophecy - The conception by a virgin was a sign for the people to show that 'God is with us'. Can't locate the source, but I have read that that prophecy was fulfilled during Isaiah's time. Also, the birth of Jesus was another sign that God was on the side of His people.
Micah 5 makes sense to me as a prophecy for the Millenial Kingdom of Christ (if you believe this concept). As with most predictions in the Bible, there are always similar occurrances before the event, which some call 'foreshadowing'.
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:40 pm
by Joel Freeman
RGeeB wrote:Micah 5 makes sense to me as a prophecy for the Millenial Kingdom of Christ .
Can you explain that to me? I don't think that I have ever heard of the "millenial kingdom of christ."
Still need help
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 4:05 pm
by bearbite
I understand the virgin part, it's just that the prophecy in Isaiah makes it seem like He would come very soon, but He came like a few hundred years later. Anyway, I don't really have much of a problem with Isaiah, but I still have trouble understanding Micah. I have no trouble thinking that Micah was actually referring to Jesus delivering Christians from our enemies, but it still sounds kind of misleading, you know? I mean, why use "Assyria"? It could have been :oops: a common term for "enemy", but would they see it as symbolic or literal?
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:33 am
by RGeeB
Joel Freeman wrote:RGeeB wrote:Micah 5 makes sense to me as a prophecy for the Millenial Kingdom of Christ .
Can you explain that to me? I don't think that I have ever heard of the "millenial kingdom of christ."
Read Revelation 19, 20 and 21 in one sitting.
BB
from the website:
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/2307.htm
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you as sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. This is one of the most famous prophecies regarding the birth of Jesus the Messiah in the Bible. It also illustrates a principle of prophecy, that prophecy may have both a near fulfillment and a far fulfillment.
i. Spurgeon said of this passage, that it is said to be “One of the most difficult in all the Word of God. It may be so; I certainly did not think it was until I saw what the commentators had to say about it, and I rose up from reading them perfectly confused.”
ii. “It is characteristic of predictive prophecy that it often mingles different times together in one composite picture” (Martin)
c. The near fulfillment of this prophecy centered around Ahaz, Jerusalem, and the attack from Israel and Syria. For Ahaz, the sign centered around a time span (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). Simply put, God would give Ahaz a sign that within a few years, both Israel and Syria would be crushed. This was a sign of deliverance to Ahaz.
i. Many commentators think that this was immediately fulfilled when a young woman in the royal household shortly married, conceived a son, and unknowingly naming him “Immanuel.” Before this boy came to eat solid food, Israel and Syria were be defeated. It is also possible that God is just referring in a figurative way to a year or two period of time.
ii. “The name 'Immanuel' was a rebuke to Ahaz. If 'God is with us,' then why should he have feared the enemy?” (Wolf)
iii. “The 'sign' of the child, therefore, constitutes an indication that the all-sovereign and all-knowing God has the situation completely in hand, and it rebukes the king's lack of faith in him.” (Grogan)
d. The far or ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy goes far beyond Ahaz, to announce the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
i. We know this passage speaks of Jesus because the Holy Spirit says so through Matthew: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” (Matthew 1:23)
ii. We know this passage speaks of Jesus because the prophecy is addressed not only to Ahaz, but also to David's entire house (O house of David!).
iii. We know this passage speaks of Jesus because it says the virgin shall conceive, and that conception would be a sign to David's entire house. Those who deny the virgin birth of Jesus like to point out that the Hebrew word translated virgin (almah) can also be translated as “young woman.” The idea is that Isaiah was simply saying that a “young woman” would give birth, not a virgin. While the near fulfillment may have reference to a young woman giving birth, the far or ultimate fulfillment clearly points to a woman miraculously conceiving and giving birth. This is especially clear because the Old Testament never uses the word in a context other than virgin and because the Septuagint translates it categorically virgin (parthenos).
iv. We know this passage speaks of Jesus because it says He will be known as Immanuel, meaning “God with Us.” This was true of Jesus in fact, not only as a title. Immanuel speaks both of the deity of Jesus (God with us) and His identification and nearness to man (God with us).
e. Jesus is truly Immanuel, God with us. “Christ, indeed, was not called by this name Immanuel that we anywhere read of . . . but the import of this name is most truly affirmed and acknowledged to be fully made good in him.” (Trapp)
i. “He is, therefore, called God with us, or united to us; which cannot apply to a man who is not God . . . it denotes not only the power of God, such as he usually displays by his servant, but a union of person, by which Christ became God-man.” (Calvin)
ii. “In what sense then, is Christ God with us? Jesus is called Immanuel, or God with us, in his incarnation; God with us, by the influences of his Holy Spirit, in the holy sacrament, in the preaching of his word, in private prayer. And God with us, through every action of our life, that we begin, continue, and end in his name. He is God with us, to comfort, enlighten, protect, and defend us, in every time of temptation and trial, in the hour of death, in the day of judgment; and God with us and in us, and we with and in him, to all eternity.” (Clarke)
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:42 am
by RGeeB
Another example of near and far fulfillment of prophecy I came across this morning. Ezekiel's lament for the king of Tyre in Chapters 26 and 28. This was fulfilled by Alexander the great in 332BC. It's also a poetic description of the fall of Satan.
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:24 am
by bizzt
Book Recommendation
Title: Major Bible Prophecies
Author: John F. Walvoord
Isaiah 7 Prophecy
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:41 pm
by meforevidence
This prophecy was at least two fold. The prophecy was indeed fulfilled once during the days of Isaiah. See my website on prophecy and the Bible side by side at:
http://biblehistoryevi.freeforumsite.co ... historyevi
Some critics do not believe the verse was in the original texts. The Vaticinus makes it look like a footnote, however, the Sinai and the Syriac Peshitta did include it. Even if the verse was not in Matthew originally (even though I believe it was) it still does not change the fact that Isaiah 7 was actually fulfilled and that Mary was a virgin.
The sign unto the king in Isaiah 7 was that in a short time, the two kings that were threatening Jerusalme would be taken away by the Assyrian king. The sign would include a virgin (some versions say "young woman") that would have a child and before he was old enough to know right and wrong, this would happen. When you go to the next chapter, Isaiah states that he went into the "prophetess" which was more than likely his wife and she bare a child. Before he was old enough to know right from wrong or could say mama or papa, the two kings were taken away. Isaiah's child may or may not have been the child being spoken about in Isaiah 7. It does not seem like it was since the name was different. However, this does indicate that whoever the other child was (since it was most definitely a sign unto the king of that time and the child would be born before the two kings were taken away to Assyria) that the prophecy was fulfilled.