Question about Is. 66:8

[benandgrace]

A while back I was discussing preterism and dispensationalism with someone who used Is. 66:8 as part of her defense for dispensationalism. I didn't have it memorized, so I told her I would get back with her. I read the chapter a couple weeks ago. I'm not sure but I think I remember the chapter (or at least part of it) referring to 'true' isreal/the christian church. Is. 66:8 seems to be a vague scripture and possible a rhetorical question. Does anyone have any accurate commentary handy on this verse or anything that might help? Thanks.

[Zguy28]

I would venture that verse 8 & 9 are an argument against Dispie Futurism. Particularly the "70th week hasn't been fulfilled yet" method of thinking.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Those verses are certainly problematic for any "gap" normally associated with futurism IMO. The only options from those verses is that the dispies are wrong about the future restoration of Israel OR they are just plain wrong. (And based on the rest of scripture, I go with the latter.)

[benandgrace]

Those verses are certainly problematic for any "gap" normally associated with futurism IMO. The only options from those verses is that the dispies are wrong about the future restoration of Israel OR they are just plain wrong. (And based on the rest of scripture, I go with the latter.)
Yes, the point the woman was trying to make was that Israel's situation in 1948 was a fulfilled prophecy of Is. 66:8. I should have been more specific. Anyway, could you explain why you believe she is incorrect concerning this? Thanks.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Yes, the point the woman was trying to make was that Israel's situation in 1948 was a fulfilled prophecy of Is. 66:8. I should have been more specific. Anyway, could you explain why you believe she is incorrect concerning this? Thanks.
Incorrect would be to strong (without going into great detail about other, clearer passages). Problematic is how I would describe her use of those verses (unless I had the time to go over Mt. 24, et. al. Zech. 14., Revalation,Daniel, etc.).

It is problematic for a few reasons.

1. The historical context in which Isaiah wrote before the excile of Judea, but did prophecy this event. The restoration (child birth) mentioned is much more likely to be in the context of that event than the restoration from the diaspora of AD 70. (That is assuming that the restoration of Israel was the prime focus of this verse).

2. Much more likely (IMO) this is a reference to the Messianic promise or "seed" that was to come from Israel. As early as Genesis 3, God has promised a "seed" of redemption. Beginning with Abraham the seed was promised to come specifically from Abraham (and then Issac and Jacog AKA Israel).

Nothing in the Isaiah passage indicates what here is "being birthed" (though there are reference to "land" and "nations". However, it does indicate that the birthing process has already begun. The seed of promise makes much more sense than restoration of national Israel in the 20th centrury for a couple of reasons.

A. As mentioned in #1 above, this prophecy was given before the excile of Judah (and maybe before the exile of Israel, not 100% sure of the later). And it was writtn in the book of Isaiah, which heavily predicted the excile of Judah. If this passage was about the restoration of national Israel, it would far more likely be a reference to the restoration of Judah from Babylonian captivity.

B. The passage speaks of "birthing" or completing a process. National Israel is not a good candicate for a "new nation", as national Israel was at it's hight under David/Solomon. National Israel is hardly a candidate for "new birth" here. IMO the much more likely candidate is the consumation of the Messianic promise. This is a promise that was made to the nation of Israel and the land promise indicated that it would be in the land of Israel (nation and land are not as synonomous in the OT as they are for us today. Land was land, and nation was usually a reference to an ethnic people group.)

So if Isaiah is giving prophecies about the exile of Judah, there would be alarm that the Messiahnic prophecy would not be fullfilled. A prophecy that God had promised earlier to be fulfilled. Isaiah here is likely saying, "don't worry, God said the seed of promise would come from Israel, and it will."

This is far from a complete analysis/interpretation of this passage, but I have already spent more time than I really have answering thus far. Sorry my answer is not as complete as I would like.

[benandgrace]

Thanks for spending the time answering my question. That was a big help. If you know of any sources of info that would add to what you have already explained then I'll refer the woman to it. If not, then it's ok.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I am not familiar with any sources other than the typical online Bible Comentaries (www.studylight.org and www.crosswalk.com) . I used those to get a feel for what the "consensus" was on those verses. There is none. So they were not all that helpful.

[Zguy28]

Those verses are certainly problematic for any "gap" normally associated with futurism IMO. The only options from those verses is that the dispies are wrong about the future restoration of Israel OR they are just plain wrong. (And based on the rest of scripture, I go with the latter.)And even if you must interpret it with a "gap", it still doesn't even come close to meaning the restoration of national Israel. If its stretched, maybe it would refer to what Paul said about the Jews all being saved in the future (Romans). I seriously doubt it though.