Hotep~ Peace to the Divine Spirit~
Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz literally translates to: speed to the spoil or hurry to the plunder.
I'm glad you made this post bredren because its a good question, and I think it deserves a full explanation.
But first I have to let the I know that Isaiah 7 doesn't have anything to do with the messiah or the Christ. This must be understood first. Many verses through out the Old Testament were disfigured and deliberatly taken out of context by Christian missionaries. Now heres how I prove this claim...
The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah around the year 732 B.C.E. The House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand -- the Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read,
"And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, "Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer's field, and you shall say to him, 'Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: "Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us." So said the Lord God, "Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass . . . ." ' " The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above." Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord." Then he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity ("he knows to reject bad and choose good"), the two
warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these
two kings were suddenly assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria. What comfort would King Ahaz found in a child being born 700 years after the conflict?
Now heres where it gets fun. Christian missionaries have maintained that this passage in Isaiah is a reference to the 'virgin' birth. It should be noted however that the word "virgin" does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha'almah as "a virgin." This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "a virgin." It means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity. Most modern Christian Bibles have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as "the young woman."
Revised Standard Version:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Revised English Bible:
"Because you do, the Lord of his own accord will give you a sign; it is this: A young woman is with child, and she will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel."
New English Bible:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son, and will call him Immanuel."
New Revised Standard Version:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."
The Jerusalem Bible: Readers Edition
"The Lord himself, therefore, will give you a sign. It is this: The maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel."
The Bible: A New Translation
"An omen you shall have, and that from the Eternal himself. There is a young woman with child, who shall bear a son and call his name "Immanuel" (God is with us). "
I could post more but I think the I gets the point. So in a desperate attempt to save their stunning biblical error, Christians will in turn say that "Oh well thats a double prophecy." They concede that the first application of Isaiah's prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago. With this elaborate explanation, missionaries maintain that Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate.(Matthew 1:22-23) In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled twice: once in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved. Or is it?
The troubles created by this explanation are manifold. To begin with, the proposal of dual prophecy is entirely contrived and has no basis in the Bible. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of a second fulfillment.2 The notion of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem.
Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the word ha'almah means a "virgin," and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive in Ahaz's time? Were there two virgin births? That is to say, if these Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who then was the first virgin having a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that these missionaries insist that the word ha'almah can only mean virgin. Are they claiming that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive and give birth to a child? Oops.
Furthermore, if they claim the seventh chapter of Isaiah is a dual prophecy, how does Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad? Remember, Isaiah 7:14-16 reads,
"Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign, "Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
If Isaiah's words are the substance of a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned? Who dreaded the Kingdom of Israel during the first century when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the seventh century B.C.E.? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does any of this make any sense? It doesn't because this argument of a dual prophecy was born out of the desperation of Christian missionaries and essentially makes a mockery out of the Book of Isaiah.
And I do want to eventually get back to the original question about Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, but I think that it is essential that we continue to look into this 'virgin birth' even more and find out just why it doesn't work.
According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim makes it impossible, however, for Christians to insist that Jesus was king of the Jews. This is because tribal lineage is traced only through a person's father. This is clearly stated in Numbers 1:18. According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Hebrew mother, not a human Hebrew father. This human Hebrew father would be essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David.
Mary's genealogy is not found anywhere in the New Testament. In both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke, the two men provide a genealogy of Joseph alone, although these genealogies severely contradict each other. As mentioned above, Joseph's genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to Christian doctrine, Joseph was not Jesus' father. I should mention that according to both Catholic and Protestant tradition, whereas Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke's genealogy is of Mary. Although this tradition is completely alien to the words of the Gospels, it was a necessary doctrine for the church to embrace.
Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament for that matter, does it state that Mary was from the House of David. On the contrary, Luke 1:27 insists that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary. In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest, (Luke 1:5), placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David's tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because Joseph was from the House of David.
But even though we have established that it was really Joeseph who was from the tribe of Judah and not Mary, there still lingers a problem that is important to take note of. In Matthew's genealogy, Joseph's father is Jacob, Matthew 1:16, in Luke's genealogy it is Heli. So even this part is confounded.
So going back to the original question about Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz was the second mentioned son of the prophet Isaiah, mentioned by name in Isaiah 8:1–3. Isaiah was commanded first to write in large characters on a tablet, and afterwards to give it as a symbolical name to a son that was to be born to him (Isa. 8:1, 3), as denoting the sudden attack on Damascus and Syria by the Assyrian army. This prophecy is in direct relation to Isaiah 7 and the warring kingdoms. Also just as an interesting fact, the name 'Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz' is the longest Biblical name in existence.
Hope this brings some closure...
Divine Peace~
|
|
