Rebuttal Of Paine's Examination Of Prophecies

[Light_of_Reason]

At another forum, a person set out a point by point rebuttal of Skeptic's Annotated Bible's failed prophecy list, which I find to be a rather weak list. So I presented that author with Paine's Examination of the Prophecies, whereupon I received this defense of Isaiah 7 being a prophecy about Jesus.

 

Point #1

 

Paine boasts, but he succeeds only in showing us the shallowness by which he treats the passage. No careful reader of the bible should fail to see the gaping holes in his arguments.

 

Misrepresentation and missing important parts of the sign:

Did not address significant names

As previously, Paine begins by misrepresenting the passage, he failed to address the name of the child, hence its central role (in the story) is hidden from his readers. Similarly Paine ignores or omits to take into account the second, but related, birth prophecy, the birth of Mahershalalhashbaz, which had more immediate application for Isaiah's contemporaries.

 

The main thrust of Isaiah 7:14 is without a doubt, the name of the child, Immanuel (God with us). It cannot be ignored. We cannot begin discussing a messianic interpretation of Isaiah's prophecy without it. The context reveal a number of features running throughout the book of Isaiah, but particular to this passage, are names of children: Shearjashub, Mahershalalhashbaz, and Immanuel. And what is the big deal with the names of these children? simply put, they are for signs (8:1Cool.

 

Premature conclusion

Paine focuses his attack on one part of the sign: "the birth of a child" and went on about the obvious, then triumphantly concludes with the obvious... "that a child should be born seven hundred years after he was dead..... he Ahaz, should be delivered from the danger...". One would have thought that if something seem obviously wrong, that it is the rational thing to do to go back and re-examine one's steps more carefully. Paine simply condemns Matthew.

 

Contextual aspects ignored by Paine

Since names have prophetic significance and meaning, the part about "the birth of a child" should not be discussed apart from the name of the child. And more is said of Immanuel in Chapter 8 and 9, God with us. We connect this with the divine Messiah and finds fulfillment . In the NT it could only refer to Jesus who claims those credentials.

 

An important theme in Isaiah is trusting God for keeping his promise to David, to the Davidic dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12, 16). In Judah, the reigning king was always a descendant of David. But David's dynasty had been under constant threat because of unfaithfulness, and one of its Kings did not help matters, for Ahaz not only introduced idol worship, but he was a faithless man. Isaiah addresses the "house of David" in 7:2 and 13. Now their northern brothers who joined with the Arameans wants to replace that line with their own. This threat is not just on Ahaz, but more importantly on the Davidic line, it is a frontal assault on God's established dynasty. It is important to realise that while it is possible to replace Ahaz with another from the Davidic line, what Israel and Aram wants to do is install a non-Davidic king over Judah. Effectively their intent was to terminate God's promise.

 

The word in Hebrew 'ot translated "sign" refers to something addressed to the senses, its function being to attest the existence of divine power. As is often the case, extraordinary events were given as a sign to assure faith and to demonstrate authority. The particular purpose for God wanting to give a sign to Ahaz was to establish Isaiah's divine commission. Paine presupposes "The thing, therefore, to be a sign of success to Ahaz, must be something....." but this is contrary to the biblical understanding of the purpose of signs. Further, Ahaz is to listen to Isaiah, and God is ready to vouch for it, but he refuses, hence any sign would have been ineffective for the faithless.

 

In his side note, Paine went off to attack the veracity of Isaiah's prophecy, going so far as to quote Chronicles 28, but here is another important aspect which Paine overlooked: conditions or warnings are sometimes attached to the promises that God gives, as is in this case.

 

7:9b If you do not stand firm in your faith,

you will not stand at all.

 

The faithless Ahaz was given every opportunity to ask for a sign. He was offered to name any sign, yet Ahaz refused to ask, and like Paine, ignored the warning God gave. So Ahaz did not stand.

 

One feature to note is the use of the word "therefore" 7:14 (in Hebrew: laken), this Hebrew particle is often used by the prophets to introduce a divine comand or declaration. Some scholars (like Young and Budde) feel that it serves to introduce a "sign of a different character from that which had previously been offered". Since Ahaz will not trust in God, the prophet announces therefore that God will give a sign to the nation of Judah that will command their trust in Him, because the nation will be removed for a time, and the people needed some confidence to trust in God to keep his promise.

 

One more item to note in v.14 is the fact that the sign is directed to "you", a plural in the Hebrew refers to the house of David not Ahaz, it is the appropriate interpretation since the context tells us that the dynasty of David is what is at stake. The house of David then is the recipient of the sign.

 

Putting it all together

Earlier we are told of the threat upon the "house of David" (7:2)

God spoke through Isaiah giving Ahaz hope, encouragement and a promise with warning about faith in God(7:4-9)

Again YHWH spoke to the non responding faithless Ahaz, this time YHWH asked Ahaz to ask for any sign he cared to name. But Ahaz refuses to acknowledge the covenant giving YHWH Ahaz is foregrounded here.(7:10-12)

At this refusal, Ahaz fate was sealed, he is backgrounded. Through Isaiah, God now speaks once again to the "house of David" to give them hope (7:13)

Therefore! ADONAI himself will give you (plural, hence "house of David") a sign: The young girl (virgin) is pregnant, and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel (7:14).

 

Summary

1. As an immediate concern Ahaz was offered a conditional promise by God, and was offered to name any sign from God. Ahaz faithless, refused, so he got no sign. Zero sign.

 

2. As a future concern The "house of David" already has an unconditional promise, and was therefore given a sign from God. They were given a sign to trust in God keeping his promise to David.

 

Ahaz will not listen to the prophet, and Ahaz will not listen to God. Appropriately v13 begins: "Hear ye now, O house of David". The sign of verse 14 is therefore addressed to the house of David who will listen.

 

The weaknesses are abundantly apparent, but I found it most humorous how a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian has turned to adding multiple layers of interpretation and meaning to the plain text of Isaiah in order to make it a prophecy about Jesus. And that is exactly what it requires, because a plain reading of the text within its context cannot lead one to conclude it is in any way, shape, or form about Jesus. But since Matthew later cites it as a prophecy about Jesus, the Christian has to make it fit, and despite all the clamoring about nonbelievers constantly reading the bible out of context, the Christian is forced to add interpretations to the plain text while the nonbeliever gets to use the plain text as a most blunt weapon.

[Thurisaz]

No one believes in the whole bible literally. Just the facts.

 

One can swallow a part of it literally... or all of it metaphorically or twisted and folded to make some sense in the way one wants it to... but that's about it.