Circle Squared
A Textual Analysis of the Book of Mormon
Chapter 17: "Battle of the War-Bands"
Chapter Summary:
Ephraim and Syria wage war against Judah--Christ will be born of a virgin--Compare Isaiah 7. About 559–545 B.C.
In a most confusing fashion, Isaiah describes several historical figures. The main figures seem to be the rulers of Ephraim and Syria, who assemble together to overtake Jerusalem. In response, "the Lord God" says, "It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass."
This is interesting since, according to Lehi and Nephi, god has no problem letting Jerusalem be destroyed due to their wickedness and disbelief. Why, in this specific battle, would god bother to protect Jerusalem?
It makes more sense to me that Isaiah is describing a primitive tribal god who happens to be on the winning side. But does the fact that one side who worships a particular god wins a battle prove that their particular god is real?
Primitive cultures, including the ancient Jews, were not truly monotheistic. It is a well established historical fact that the Jewish god, Yahweh, was originally part of a Canaanite pantheon of gods.
The Old Testament often describes "battles" where the Jews would pit their god's magical powers against gods of other tribes. It is no wonder that in the Jewish-written Old Testament, Yahweh always won. But, despite this winning streak of godly superpower death-matches, they always acknowledged the existence of the defeated gods.
Again, this all makes perfect sense under the theory that the ancient Jews were nothing more than a Bronze Age war-tribe.
Isaiah, who was guided by god to sneak up on the Jewish king, Ahaz, tells the king that he will not be successful in battle if he does not believe. So, in an attempt to increase the king's belief, Isaiah (speaking as god) tells the king to ask god for a sign:
"11 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above."
I have discussed the problems with signs and miracles before. They cannot prove supernatural causation by themselves. Luckily, though, Ahaz refuses to ask for a miracle because he doesn't want to tempt god. Bullet dodged.
I wonder why god hasn't offered me a miracle. Perhaps he knows that miracles don't prove anything. If this is the case, why would god ever do miracles? It is claimed in both the bible and the Book of Mormon that god does perform miracles as a means to flex his all-powerful muscles, so it must be the other thing: there is no god.
Ahaz goes on to explain that in addition to not wanting to tempt god, he also does not want to make god "weary". Either Ahaz has no understanding of omnipotence, or Yahweh, being part of a pantheon of ancient gods with various powerful yet imperfect abilities, is not all-powerful. Which ever is the case, there is a clear difference between the limited, imperfect, tribal war-god Isaiah and Ahaz describe, and the omniscient, omnipotent, and in all other ways perfect god described in Mormonism.
Well, god apparently really super-duper wants to give Ahaz a sign, so he offers this:
"14 Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign--Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
I am not a bible scholar, but I am familiar with a few criticisms of this verse. First, Jesus Christ's name is not Immanuel. Second, the word "virgin" in Hebrew ("alma") means "young girl". Often, virginity is implied by the reference to youth, it is not requisite. Perhaps a better English word to use would be "maiden". If this is the intended meaning, where is the miracle? That a young woman became pregnant?
Scholars estimate that Mary was betrothed to Joseph at the age of 13. While this is certainly a young age to be married and have children in our day, in Bronze Age Palestine, where the life expectancy was around 35, it was fairly common.
If the intended meaning of "alma" really was a virgin conceiving miraculously, this sign from god, which was meant to strengthen the belief of Ahaz, would not make any sense as a sign if Isaiah was describing an event 600 years in the future. It only makes sense in the context described by Isaiah himself as an event which would happen soon enough for Ahaz to witness the event in time to inspire him to victory in the immediate battle against Ephraim and Syria.
The next two verses elaborate on this prophecy and describe the child being born, raised to know good from evil (by eating butter and honey), and when this happens the two kings fighting Ahaz will be defeated:
"15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and to choose the good."
"16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."
To me, again, this means that Isaiah is describing an immediate event. The "virgin" will conceive and bare a child. This child will eat butter and honey. By the time the child learns right from wrong, Ahaz will win his battle. None of this points to Jesus!
Isaiah goes on to describe Israel after their successful battle: cattle and bees will be so plentiful and the land will be so rich that everyone will eat butter and honey. Then the surrounding areas will be overrun by briers and thorns and they will try to come to Israel to share in the wealth.
None of this prophecy points to Jesus. Everything points to the Jews being a wandering, warring pack of Palestinians with a favorite war-god leading them to tribal turf-wars.