Love that you’re using content from PT Media! They’ve got great stuff from David Jackman, Robin Sydserff, Christopher Ash et al .. (and of course I’m bias being a student at PT haha!)
I just did a study on the Immanuel sign and learned that many people believe there was a near fulfillment and a distant fulfillment in Christ's incarnation. When you bring in Isaiah's sons, it turns into a 3D image of God's divine work and plan. Either God will be with you in if you follow him, or he will be with you in judgement if you follow the path of Ahaz.
Prophecy can be tough as people hash out typological fulfillment, near fulfillment/far fulfillment, or a combination of both.
It really seems to me that the burden of proof in this chapter would be on those who refute the near fulfillment. In my opinion it’s pretty clear it would have to have had a fulfillment in Ahaz’s day or else there would have been no reason for the prophecy in that setting.
It would almost be like Paul writing Galatians to a group of churches who weren’t actually struggling with the relationship between works of the law and faith, just so we could read it 2,000 years later.
While much prophecy has far fulfillment and sometimes only far fulfillments, for this one it would be tough to make that case.
Love that you’re using content from PT Media! They’ve got great stuff from David Jackman, Robin Sydserff, Christopher Ash et al .. (and of course I’m bias being a student at PT haha!)
I’m honestly not even sure what PT Media is! I’m guessing they’re associated with a commentary I referenced?
Cool to have the touchpoint there, though.
I just did a study on the Immanuel sign and learned that many people believe there was a near fulfillment and a distant fulfillment in Christ's incarnation. When you bring in Isaiah's sons, it turns into a 3D image of God's divine work and plan. Either God will be with you in if you follow him, or he will be with you in judgement if you follow the path of Ahaz.
That 3D concept is a cool idea!
Prophecy can be tough as people hash out typological fulfillment, near fulfillment/far fulfillment, or a combination of both.
It really seems to me that the burden of proof in this chapter would be on those who refute the near fulfillment. In my opinion it’s pretty clear it would have to have had a fulfillment in Ahaz’s day or else there would have been no reason for the prophecy in that setting.
It would almost be like Paul writing Galatians to a group of churches who weren’t actually struggling with the relationship between works of the law and faith, just so we could read it 2,000 years later.
While much prophecy has far fulfillment and sometimes only far fulfillments, for this one it would be tough to make that case.