Replies

Judah and Jerusalem? That appears to be pre-second century language. Recall that after the remnant of Israel and Judah returned from Babylon, they merged into one "kingdom" under the banner of Judah in Judea; hence, the first century name of "Jews" that we are all familiar with. Therefore, Isaiah's time context for this prophecy appears to be prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

A much more reasonable explanation for why Isaiah mentions Judah (and not Israel) is that during the time of his ministry, the Northern Kingdom was not in existence.

It is also very disturbing that you run off to Revelation, then Hebrews, then back to Revelation, then Acts, then Galatians, etc. etc. ... to provide context and interpretation of a prophecy in the OT.

This highlights what I have been trying to tell you for some time ...

The basic flaw in your approach is not interpretive ... its your theological method that you are employing. By reading the NT back into the OT you transform the OT prophecy of Isaiah into something that it is not. You have yanked Isaiah out of its historical context, almost as if all that historical and OT background is irrelevant.

>>>A much more reasonable explanation for why Isaiah mentions Judah (and not Israel) is that during the time of his ministry, the Northern Kingdom was not in existence.<<<

I am not sure I understand. Are you implying that the prophecy of Isaiah 2 was referring the era before the Jews were carried away unto Babylon? I assumed that Isaiah 2 was referring to first century AD because of the use of the words, "last days," which were also used to identify the days of the ministry of Christ and the day of Pentecost, as explained in the post.

>>>It is also very disturbing that you run off to Revelation, then Hebrews, then back to Revelation, then Acts, then Galatians, etc. etc. ... to provide context and interpretation of a prophecy in the OT.<<<

It did not disturb me. Explain why you are disturbed (with scripture, if you will.)

>>>This highlights what I have been trying to tell you for some time ... The basic flaw in your approach is not interpretive ... its your theological method that you are employing. By reading the NT back into the OT you transform the OT prophecy of Isaiah into something that it is not. You have yanked Isaiah out of its historical context, almost as if all that historical and OT background is irrelevant.<<<

Are you saying that Isaiah 2 was referring to Judah before Babylon? You posted exactly zero verses to explain yourself, in all cases; so I can only guess what you are trying to say.

If you believe my interpretation of a scripture, or scriptures, is in error, please post those scriptures and explain why. If I am in error, I really do want to know. But as I have stated many times: your opinion is simply an opinion; not proof.

Philip