- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve not posted on this site for a while now, but there is something I think bears discussing. It includes a long quote, so bear with me. I’ve been listening to the series of lectures mentioned from time to time on this discussion board by Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University on the Bible. I had a conversation with my wife after listening to Dr. Hayes discuss what Christians usually looks to as an important messianic prophecy in Isaiah 9:
“So if we look at Isaiah’s dealings with King Ahaz — the first siege in 734 — this is described in Isaiah, chapter 7 and 8. Isaiah, who also has children with portentous names (this is a fad I guess among the prophets — his children’s names are: “only a remnant will survive,” and “hasten for spoil, hurry for plunder” which indicates the destruction and exile) — he goes to visit the king. And his advice to the king is: be quiet and do not fear (chapter 7:4). The crisis will pass. 7:9: “If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.” [RSV; see note 1] This is an evocation of Zion theology. God is in the midst of the city. That means the Lord of Hosts is with the people. Isaiah then offers Ahaz a sign of the truth of his prophecy. And that is, namely, that a young woman who has conceived will bear a son and will call him Immanuel. It’s Hebrew Immanu el, “God is with us.” Immanu = “is with us”, El. So this woman who has conceived will bear a son and will call him Immanuel. This is in 7:14. Now, in the New Testament, Matthew, in chapter 1:22-23, takes this verse as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus. This is based on a Greek mistranslation of the word “young woman” as “virgin.” The Hebrew term that’s used is not in fact the term for virgin, but it was translated into the Greek with a term that can mean virgin. And moreover, the verb that’s used in the Hebrew is in the past tense. A woman has already conceived. The birth is pending. It is imminent. This child will be born. God will be with us.
The identity of the woman that Isaiah is speaking about is a matter of some dispute. So some scholars take the verse as a reference to Isaiah’s own wife. She’s already had two children with portentous names and now she’s pregnant with a third. But the others take the verse as a reference to the king’s own wife, who will bear his son Hezekiah, King Hezekiah. There are some problems with chronology. It doesn’t quite work out that he would be the right age. But the fact is Hezekiah was a celebrated king. He did in fact manage to keep Judah intact against the Assyrian threat and kept Jerusalem from falling in the siege of 701. And 2 Kings, the Book of 2 Kings, chapter 18:7, says of Hezekiah, “The Lord was with him.” God was with him. Connecting it to the name Immanuel — God is with us. God is with him. Very similar, very, very similar in the Hebrew. In fact, [it] sounds the same. So in keeping with this interpretation — the idea that the child (who he says will be able, in a sense, to save Judah) is the child of the king [yet] to be born, Hezekiah — in keeping with that, scholars see the famous verses in Isaiah 9 as praise of King Hezekiah. These verses are verses that announce, “for unto us a child is born” — a wonderful counselor, a mighty God, an everlasting father, a prince of peace, referring then to an unending peace in which David’s throne and kingdom are firmly established. And again, these verses have also been decontextualized and are utilized in Christian liturgies to this day, again, as if they refer to the future birth of Jesus.”
(From Lecture 17. Literary Prophecy: Hosea and Isaiah, about 2/3 into the lecture)
I told my wife about Dr. Hayes saying that this prophecy is not about Jesus at all, but the son of Ahaz, Hezekiah.
I can’t help but wonder how important this prophecy is. In Christianity we pretty much take for granted that Isaiah refers to Jesus, or maybe to Hezekiah and Jesus. Mrs. Buscador was concerned that in considering that we, as Christians, are possibly wrong about this prophecy, that I was denying the faith.
Has anyone else out there dealt with this particular issue. (I am referring to the possible misappropriation of the Isaiah 9 prophecy mentioned above and not the discussion with my wife).
Thanks for that quote, Buscador. It has been a while since I’ve gone through that chapter, so I appreciated your reminding me of it. People are prone to liken just about anything to their own situation – and I have no problem with people finding meaning in things that might not have held that meaning originally, as long as the meaning is not inherently destructive. Therefore, I have no problem with the application of this prophecy to Jesus in hindsight, even though I agree that its imminent message (and perhaps complete original message) wasn’t about the future Messiah.
I’m of the “take whatever moves and helps you from the scriptures” camp. If I had to teach this passage in Sunday School, I would point out what you’ve shared, but I would emphasize that MUCH of the OT is interpreted in hindsight and imbued with great symbolic meaning – and that there is nothing wrong with that. If there was, for example, it would be improper to speak of the Israelite exodus as a type of the modern Mormon exodus – and I think our heritage would be cheated of a great and powerful symbol if we got overly-technical about that particular comparison.
I personally don’t think any of the Old Testament prophets had any real idea about the coming of Jesus Christ. Mormon theology would have us believe that if the Old Testament were translated correctly and had not been manipulated by evil and designing men, it would read much more plainly and testify about Christ like the Book of Mormon does with essentially Christians living since the time of Adam. I don’t believe the Old Testament supports this view (but then I don’t think the New Testament actually describes actual events such as a virgin birth or a resurrection or view the Book of Mormon as an ancient text either). I think the symbols are fine and are largely created by people from their own view. The historicity of the symbol is less important than the meaning of the symbol for the person who is it.
On the other hand, I think there is a lot of importance behind “original intent” and I just don’t think the Old Testament had Jesus Christ in the original intent.
Just a reminder, I’m in Stage 4 and all the symbols are dead to me.
Buscador, I’ve enjoyed the yale course too, but I’ve had to take a break. Thanks for the preview!
One of the important things to remember about symbols is they can have multiple meanings. So, yes, this prophecy could refer to both Hezekiah and Christ. As we look at Jonah and the great fish, Jonah was in there 3 days, and Christ used that to symbolize his being “swallowed up dead” 3 days.
The parable of the mustard seed can be shown to represent (1) the gospel of Jesus spreading across the globe, (2) one’s personal receptiveness to the gospel, and (3) the spreading of Mormonism across the globe. All can be considered valid interpretations, though some will fail to believe they are valid.
I think Dr. Hayes is probably correct. That sounds more “intellectually” reasonable to me. I remember her talking about that too in the course. The OT has been around 2,500+ years. It hasn’t endured the test of time because it is “True.” It endured as one of the greatest pieces of literature EVER in the history of humanity
exactlybecause the stories are so universally valuable. Because Jews reuse the text and reapply it generation after generation, adapting it to their contemporary needs, that is why it endures as great “scripture.” Because Christians hijacked it and used it as the foundation of their new religion, appropriating the stories as their own, that is why it has such a place of prominence in Western culture. The same goes for the Muslims and anyone else who uses the OT. The “truth” of the old testament is found in its ability to express meaning through all the changes of the world.
So yeah. I think based on the textual analysis angle, it was probably not originally understood as a prophecy of Jesus Christ’s birth, not by the writer or the reader in the time and context of its creation. There’s no reason IMO why Christians can’t use it the way they have. I am at peace with that idea. If people see prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ in the OT, I understand that. Lots of people see it. Christianity came about that way, by taking the OT and moving forward with it in fulfillment of prophecy. Many passages in the NT talk about fulfillment of the words of the OT prophets. That was part of Christ’s message.
On the other hand, I have much more sympathy for the position of the Jews after studying the OT more outside my Mormon/Christian context. I see why they might not have seen Jesus as the whole point of the OT when he showed up on the scene.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.