Responding to Nihilist Virus
It’s not my intention to go tit-for-tat in this debate. I would rather focus on the larger contours of the issue than get bogged down in every little comment. So I’m not going to respond to everything that Nihilist Virus has said. However, a few things need commenting upon. In this section I’ll address some of his statements before moving onto what I promised in my previous post.
Sennacharib (King of Assyria) invaded Judah in 701 BC and took their fortified cities and besieged Jerusalem. This occurred under the reign of Hezekiah (Ahaz’s son) and was the height of the Assyrian crisis for Judah. Both Hebrew and Assyria records of these events exist. You can read about them in
2 Kings 18:13-37 and
Isaiah 36 &
Isaiah 37. Also you can read about it here -
Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem - Wikipedia. The “shaving” referenced in Isaiah 7:20 refers to the
land being shaved (not Ahaz). This is further reinforced in Isaiah 8:5-8 which says:
Whether the shaving of King Ahaz refers to his humiliation or to the land being plundered is inconsequential because both are consistent with the idea that he accepts the role of a vassal king.
I was unaware that these attacks had occurred. However, they were nevertheless the result of Judah's new king, Hezekiah, violating the vassal-master relationship that Assyria had previously established with King Ahaz. This was certainly not an unpreventable attack. It was more of a disciplinary action than anything else. Assyria had no intentions of utterly destroying Judah because they wanted to continue to tax Judah for tribute.
The main point of what I was saying is that my opponent represented history incorrectly. Here is the quote again:
But in the second part of the prophesy we see there is a more sinister note. The abundance is only going to come after Judah itself has been destroyed. Assyria will invade the land of Judah (Isaiah 7:17) and will shave it like a razor. This is obviously in response to Ahaz’s intention to reach out to Assyria for help (Isaiah 8:6-7).
This began to happen under the reign of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:13-37). Judah finally fell during the reign of Zedekiah (2 Kings 25). Only those who are left in the land after destruction will enjoy abundance (Isaiah 7:22). We also read on in Isaiah 8 and 9 that the Immanuel child will inherit this remnant kingdom (Isaiah 8:8) but will turn things around and bring it back to a golden age (Isaiah 9:1-11).
My opponent says that the destruction of Judah began under Hezekiah's rule and ended with Zedekiah's rule. The choice of words here strongly suggests that the same long struggle starts with the former king and ends with the latter; in reality, those two kings dealt with two different conflicts involving two different empires. I doubt I was the only one confused by the way it was worded. In fact, I see no other way to discern my opponent's intentions because he goes on to say that "only those who are left in the land after destruction will enjoy abundance." His use of the word "abundance" refers to curds and honey - the Immanuel prophecy - but Assyria did not destroy Judah and didn't even want to. The destruction occurred much later.
Furthermore, no one was left after Zedekiah lost the kingdom because all of the Jews were exiled. While it's possible that not every single Jew down to the last man was exiled - I have not researched this - it is the case that Jesus' ancestors on both sides were among the exiled (Matthew 1:11-12 lists ancestors of Christ at the time of the exile, and Luke 3:27 lists the same exiles), so it would be invalid to think of Jesus as a remnant that remained left in the land.
So if Immanuel was indeed a remnant of the destruction (somehow evading exile) then Immanuel is not and cannot be Jesus or even an ancestor of Jesus.
So, indeed, because Ahaz will establish a vassal relationship with Assyria there will be dire consequences that Immanuel will inherit. And although Assyria was not the one who conquered Judah in the end (Babylon did), Babylon conquered Judah from the north - from Assyrian territory. This is because Babylon conquered Assyria before conquering Judah. Either way, the Immanuel prophecy speaks of events that will come decades later (Assyrian crisis) and possibly centuries later (Babylonian destruction). Babylon is not explicitly named here, but is explicitly named later in Isaiah 39:6 as the ones who will be responsible for Judah’s ultimate fall.
I'm not entirely sure what my opponent is trying to get at here. He asserts that the Immanuel prophecy must be speaking of the Assyrian attack when there is no reason to think that at all. It is clearly describing the fact that King Ahaz will be a vassal. This is long before any attack occurs.
My opponent also says that the idea that Immanuel would appear 700 years after the prophecy is “ridiculous” and “absurd”. But why should this be so? This is the very question we’re discussing and so to simply assert this opinion is not much of an argument. Isaiah elsewhere in his prophecy mentions figures like Cyrus who will not appear for at least 250 years (Isaiah 45:1). So why cannot the Immanuel figure be a figure in the future?
My opponent seemingly did not read what I had to say because he is asking why the absurdity abounds in his position. He says that I am making an assertion and not an argument. I am now forced to repeat my argument because he has left it utterly unaddressed.
In reading Isaiah 7, we see that King Ahaz is told that his kingdom will not fall and that he is entitled to ask for a sign as confirmation that this prophecy will come true. Isaiah promises a certain sign, and my opponent wants to have us believe that this sign - which was intended to inform King Ahaz and influence his actions - came 700 years later. This is what is absurd, this is the entire point of the debate, and my opponent has yet to even attempt to explain how this makes any sense. And this is why, as I've said, most Christians who have managed to read Isaiah 7:14 in its proper context come to the conclusion that it must have been a dual prophecy. My opponent, however, refuses this position on pain of forfeit:
Dealing with Objections - Part 1
In order to show that the Immanuel child cannot possibly refer to Jesus one must provide compelling evidence either that:
- Details concerning the Immanuel child are incompatible with Jesus, or…
- The Immanuel child refers to another figure that we know of.
Either of these routes, if successful, would show that Jesus could not possibly be the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophesy and therefore Matthew would be using the prophesy inappropriately.
There are numerous other details that can be brought up on this issue, but what I said above about the sign and the 700 years of silence is the core of it. In failing to address this, my opponent has not yet even begun to defend his territory in this debate. Thus far the debate has gone on uncontested.
As promised, I now want to discuss the problems with trying to identify Immanuel with figures in Isaiah’s lifetime. Some have suggested that Immanuel refers to Hezekiah, Ahaz’s son. Hezekiah was a Davidic king and he was a righteous king which fits with some aspects of Isaiah 9:6-7 and Isaiah 11:1-5. Also, he inherited the mess that his father had made which fits with Isaiah 8:8. Hezekiah, unlike Ahaz, did trust Yahweh when Jerusalem was later besieged by Sennacharib and God dealt with Assyria and delivered Judah. A problem with Hezekiah, however, is that there are other aspects of the Immanuel chronicle that don’t seem to fit. For instance Isaiah says that Immanuel’s kingdom will have no end (Isaiah 9:7). Yet Hezekiah’s kingdom did come to an end and Isaiah later prophesies that because of Hezekiah’s disobedience Babylon will conquer Judah (Isaiah 39:5-7).
Other’s have suggested that Immanuel is one of Isaiah’s children. Perhaps a third child or Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz who is mentioned at the beginning of Isaiah 8. My opponent has listed reasons to believe that this is so. And the parallels that we see in Isaiah 7 and 8 are compelling. The problem with this, however, is that we know from Isaiah 7:3 that Isaiah already has at least one child - Shear Jashub. And Isaiah 7:14 says that Immanuel will be born of an almah (usually translated virgin). It is difficult to discern the precise meaning of almah because it is not well attested in the OT or other ANE literature. It only occurs about 9 times in the OT. To make a long story short, it appears that almah can mean virgin but it does not have to. It at least means a woman who has not yet born children. Either way, since Isaiah’s wife - the prophetess mentioned in Isaiah 8:3 - has already born children she could not be considered an almah. This would exclude the possibility of Immanuel being one of Isaiah’s children.
My opponent concedes that there is compelling evidence that Immanuel is Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, then rejects this on the grounds that Isaiah had already had a child and that Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz's mother hadn't had any prior children. I see no reason to make this assumption when we are delving into an era of rampant polygyny. Prominent men regularly had many wives back then, and Isaiah, who was able to procure the king's attention, was presumably of some influence. Alternatively, the woman could've simply been a harlot. There are other possibilities that I will not mention for decency's sake.
Another reason why Immanuel cannot be one of Isaiah’s children is that Immanuel is clearly understood to be of the stock of David. He will be a Davidic King according to Isaiah 9:6-7 and Isaiah 11:1-5. Isaiah was not of the lineage of David and so this would also exclude Immanuel from being a child of Isaiah’s.
It is unclear to me that this passage is at all related to the events in chapters 7 and 8.
Isaiah mentions a child being born in a prophecy, then, after finishing up the rest of the prophecy, he calls in witnesses to watch him have sex (Isaiah 8:1-3). We're supposed to believe that these events are unrelated, we're supposed to ignore the obvious parallels*, and we're supposed to somehow link Isaiah 7 to Isaiah 9 for no apparent reason.
*Recall from earlier that I said,
Chapter 7
14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Chapter 8
2And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
3And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
4For 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 Assyria.
In chapter 8 verse 2, Isaiah establishes public record of the imminent sign that is supposed to accompany his prophecy. In verse 4, we see an unmistakable parallel with verse 16 from the previous chapter. While I admittedly don't understand why the name of the child is changed from Immanuel to Mahershalalhashbaz, it is clear that this is the manifestation of the prophesied sign.
So then we are left with the very real possibility that Immanuel points toward a future, Davidic king whose kingdom will have no end. And this would make Immanuel a Messianic figure.
Multiple absurd assumptions must be made for this possibility to even be on the table.