The Temporal Horizon of the Immanuel Oracle

[Ethan Bohr]

Kenneth,

I don't think that the child of Isaiah 7:15-16 is different than "Immanuel." I also don't think that one can pinpoint the temporal range of the oracle exactly from Isaiah 7 (e.g., 700 years later). But, I think we can make a conclusion that, in it's original context, the temporal range of the oracle was meant to be beyond Isaiah's lifetime. All Isaiah 7:16 says is that before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good (and eat curds and honey), the land (including Judah) will be abandoned. It does not says that he will eat curds and honey before the land is abandoned. You have it backwards.

[Ethan Bohr]

Kenneth,

I gave some brief reasons to take the "Son" of Isaiah 9 as the same as the "Son" of Isaiah 7. Both are called a "Son" that is to be born (notice similar birth imagery) to the Davidic house. Notice the repetition of lānû (“for us, to us”) at 9:6 which alludes to immānû (“with us”), just as ’ēl gibbôr (“mighty God”) evokes ’ēl in the name. Notice also how Isaiah 9:1 (Eng.) seems to allude to the Assyrian situation presented in Isaiah 7-8. I find it hard to see how the "Son" of Isaiah 9 is different than the "Son" of Isaiah 7, just two chapter later, especially since the section of Isaiah from 5-12 is typically well defined as a unit.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Kenneth,

I don't think that the child of Isaiah 7:15-16 is different than "Immanuel." I also don't think that one can pinpoint the temporal range of the oracle in exactly in Isaiah 7 (e.g., 700 years later). But, I think we can make a conclusion that, in it's original context, the temporal range of the oracle was meant to be beyond Isaiah's lifetime. All Isaiah 7:16 says is that before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good (and eat curds and honey), the land (including Judah) will be abandoned. It does not says that he will eat curds and honey before the land is abandoned. You have it backwards.

Ethan,
You are right I got the sign backwards. It sounds like you think Isaiah 7:14 is some unknown future child because you don't know when it will come true. Are you saying that Isaiah 7:14 might be about another enemy besides Assyria? Do you think it could be Babylon?
Do you think that Damascus could be resting on Ephraim in Isaiah 7:2 means that they have become servants of the king of Israel (Ephraim)? If a king of a land becomes a servant of the king of another land, wouldn't that land have two kings, the servant king and the master king? Maybe they were not just allies, but Damascus was Israel's servant just like Ahaz became a servant to the king of Assyria who then attacked Damascus for Ahaz.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
The prophecy would have to take place after the child was born and before the child can choose between curd and honey. I have heard some people say that the prophecy of the land going into exile came true hundreds of years before the child was born, and, technically, before the child could choose between curd and honey. Actually, if the prophecy comes true before the child is born, then it happens before every event of the child's life, and not just before choosing between curd and honey.

[Ethan Bohr]

Kenneth,

You seem to have a problem if one just follows the plain meaning of the text. The child is eating curds and honey at the time he reaches age of accountability (i.e. Bar Mitzvah age). As I explain, he is eating curds and honey because the land is in exile. So the next statement says that before he reaches this age, the land will go into exile. It doesn't specify how long before. It just says "before." The author could have meant for the oracle to be fulfilled from 100 to, as you seemed keen on, 700 years in the future (or whatever) because it just isn't specific enough temporally speaking. My argument, to keep things consistent, is just that Isaiah meant for the fulfillment to be beyond his lifetime or beyond the imminent future.

[Ethan Bohr]

Kenneth,

I don't think that nāḥāh gets you to: Israel and Aram becoming one nation/land in our context here.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Kenneth,

I don't think that nāḥāh gets you to: Israel and Aram becoming one nation/land.

Ethan,
I thought that maybe Aram would be the one land with 2 kings because it would be a vassal state ruled by the king of Aram and the king of Israel ruling over their king. Israel would be a separate land with it's own king because it would not be the servant of any other land. Aram would not be Israel's ruler, so Israel would only have one king.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Kenneth,

You seem to have a problem if one just follows the plain meaning of the text. The child is eating curds and honey at the time he reaches age of accountability (i.e. Bar Mitzvah age). As I explain, he is eating curds and honey because the land is in exile. So the next statement says that before he reaches this age, the land will go into exile. It doesn't specify how long before. It just says "before." The author could have meant for the oracle to be fulfilled from 100 to, as you seemed keen on, 700 years in the future (or whatever) because it just isn't specific enough temporally speaking. My argument, to keep things consistent, is just that Isaiah meant for the fulfillment to be beyond his lifetime or beyond the imminent future.

Ethan,
Technically, what you are saying satisfies the prophesy and the sign sort of. I think you are saying that the child could be born one hundred years after the land with two kings (Judah and Israel?) goes into exile because it would happen before the child eats curd and honey at age 13 or whatever age a person chooses.

I think that literally your explanation would be ok, but if the child is born 100 years after the prophecy takes place, then the sign is happening after the prophecy takes place, which defeats the purpose of having a sign really. Usually, or maybe in every example, the sign happens before the prophecy takes place because the sign is the proof that the prophecy will happen.

Also, it doesn't make sense to say that the prophecy of the land going into exile will happen before the child is 13 or whatever age, if the prophecy takes place 100 years before the child is born because the prophecy will take place before every event of the child's life. Why point out the eating curd and honey as the sign when it could be any event from saying "goo goo ga ga" to climbing a tree or to building a house. It seems silly to point out that particular event of the child's life.

The sign only makes sense as a sign if it happens before the prophecy. You have to have a child who will be born and before the child reaches the age that you think like 13, the prophecy will happen. Otherwise, it is a sign that happens too late to confirm the prophecy will happen. Is there any other partial or full prophecy in the Hebrew Bible that takes place after the prophecy is fulfilled? I doubt it because that is what a sign is for.

If a prophet said to people such and such is going to happen and this is the sign that it will happen, and such and such happens, and then the sign takes place one hundred years later, it would seem out of order.

[Ethan Bohr]

Kenneth,

I'll look into your suggestion a bit more and get back to you. I guess my trouble is: why would Aram become a vassal state of Israel when they previously were not joined together before the incident that Isaiah 7:2 mentions? Doesn't make too much sense to me. It just seems like they, at the time of Isaiah's writing, were independent land/countries again that allied with each other to deal with the Assyrian threat. But perhaps I'm missing something.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ethan,
I think that smaller kingdoms probably had to pay for protection from bigger kingdoms.