Isaiah 7:14 Gobbet Question

Isa 7:14 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.

http://goo.gl/SCLQH

Gobbet Points

•Signs of God's presence
•Israel's Sovereign Himself would give Ahaz and the house of David a sign that He was with His people
• the sign was no longer a inducement of faith but a confirmation of divine displeasure
•the Hebrew word for "virgin" is *Alma* which means a young woman of marriageable age. However the word never describes a married woman in the Old Testament
• Immanuel is sometimes regarded to be Isaiah's son who is believed to have fulfilled the prophecy
• More important is that modern scholars argue that there was no initial fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah's day
•Conservative scholars believe that the only fulfillment was in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ
More points can be added on controversy of Immanuel. Explain meaning of the name as well.

For more
Call/app +263779210440
Brian Maregedze or follow the Facebook page Divinity and History 'A level

Isaiah 7:14 Gobbet Question

Isa 7:14 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.

http://goo.gl/SCLQH

Gobbet Points

•Signs of God's presence
•Israel's Sovereign Himself would give Ahaz and the house of David a sign that He was with His people
• the sign was no longer a inducement of faith but a confirmation of divine displeasure
•the Hebrew word for "virgin" is *Alma* which means a young woman of marriageable age. However the word never describes a married woman in the Old Testament
• Immanuel is sometimes regarded to be Isaiah's son who is believed to have fulfilled the prophecy
• More important is that modern scholars argue that there was no initial fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah's day
•Conservative scholars believe that the only fulfillment was in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ
More points can be added on controversy of Immanuel. Explain meaning of the name as well.

For more
Call/app +263779210440
Brian Maregedze or follow the Facebook page Divinity and History 'A level

Discuss Hosea's Marriage and his message

*Daily Divinity Question and Answers With Brian Maregedze* *28|01|2017*

*Discuss Hosea’s marriage in relation to his message.*

The prophet’s marriage was crucial to the development of his message .Hosea’s marriage to Gomer who is a prostitute is taken as a symbolic action to depict the relationship between Israel and Yahweh .It symbolised the unfaithfulness of Israel to Yahweh in a manner that was easy for his contemporaries to understand. In this regard, it is important to note that scholars were engaged in a heated debate in a bid ascertain whether this marriage was a historical event, memorable, legendary, allegorical or a parable. This paper seeks to present Hosea’s marriage in relationship to his message.

According to A. Soggin Hosea must have been a citizen of the Northern kingdom of Israel and remained there permanently during the period of his prophetic activity. “For the land” means Israel and “our king” the king of the northern kingdom. According to the subscription of this book Hosea was the son of Beeri, and from what he says about his marriage he had unfaithful wife to him. (96)  

R .E. Brown In the book The Jerome Biblical Commentary asserts that the central experience of the prophet is a symbol revealing Yahweh’s personal love of his faithful even in their gross failings less often noted is the marriage symbol’s clear introduction of the idea of the contrast, a union of wills into the concept of the covenant with Yahweh.(15.9)Hosea was not the only prophet to use prophetic symbolism there is Jeremiah who saw a clay pot and walked naked. So it was a known strategy used to convey message.

According to B .W. Anderson he maintains that the heading of the book Hosea 1 vs. 1 which in its present form comes a later Judean editor which states that Hosea prophesied in the days of Jeroboam  and adds that his career embraced the reign of four Judean kings the last being Hezekiah (C715-687 B C) .His death lasted for at least 10 years after the death of Jeroboam, it is believed that the book of  Hosea is a compilation of little oracles delivered at different times and linked together in the present arrangement either by the prophet himself or by his disciples (245).Several additions have been made to Hosea’s oracles the most obvious of which is the concluding exhortation 14.9

Hosea, like Amos was a prophet of doom .But unlike Amos who pronounces doom that the day of the lord would be day of pitch darkness. Hosea balances the word of judgement with the promise of restoration and renewal. He too saw the day of darkness but proclaimed that despite the total darkness the sun was still shining. Hosea’s unqualified optimism of grace was no it due to any improvements in political or religious situation since the time of Amos a few years earlier the actual affairs had gone from bad to worse .Hosea’s was of “optimism of grace” since Israel’s hope was grounded down solely in the constancy of Yahweh’s love for his people .This made clear by the marriage of Hosea which became a living parable of the relation between Yahweh and Israel. (B .W Anderson 245)

According to J. Bright the key of the interpretation of Hosea’s marriage is the story of his marriage with Gomer. This story found in the first 3 chapters of the book of Hosea is presented as the difficult problems in the Old Testament .He gives only enough details about his marriage to symbolise the story of Yahweh’s relationship to Israel which occupies the centre of his attention. This story which is found in the first three chapters of Hosea is one of the difficult problems in the Old Testament .He only gives the enough details about his marriage to symbolise the relationship between Yahweh and Israel, which occupies the centre of his attention .So do Chapters one and three represent a sequence of events in the prophet’s experience with one women Gomer. Since the unnamed women of Chapter three is not explicitly identified with Gomeh. Hosea displays his literary skill throughout the second Chapter by his use of rich imagery and literary figures .The account of several distinctive metaphors, which are symbolised in Hosea’s situation with Gomer.Just as Hosea was married to Gomer who became the mother of their three children, so Yahweh is presented metaphorically as a husband to Israel who is the mother of the Israelites .The children corporate Israel as typified especially in its leadership. These metaphors are extended and may portray an allegory, in which God’s on going relation with his people is pictured.

Although husband Yahweh has provided for his wife Israel through the ages the benefit of their covenant relation that provision was taken for granted, progressively more ignored, and capped by Israel’s spiritual adultery in serving Baal. Therefore, as Hosea was to separate himself from Gomer for a while, so in accordance with the terms of covenant God will separate himself from Israel by sending his people into exile .In the future however,2(14-23) just as Hosea is to seek and return to Yahweh ,Gomer full of familiar status so will one day Yahweh restore a chastised and repent people to full privileges. Hosea builds upon the emphasis of previous verse 2 vs 1 concerning the changed symbolic names attached to the future Israelites by advising the present day Israelites the children to plead earnestly with their mother corporate Israel, especially its leadership. It is a story call for a rebuke that hopefully will result in such conviction that Israel will change its ways.(Mckezie  .J .L 145)

Hosea reiterates the lord’s warnings by revealing what Israel may expect to  the face of God’s coming judgement of his people .Did Israel put its trust in Baal’s supposed provision of the basic necessities of life food water and clothing as well as the fertility of the soil and economic prosperity. She would soon learn that it was Yahweh, not Baal who has provided these things .What Yahweh had given to Israel he would finally take it again.(R. Brown 75.74 )

R. E. Brown in the book Jerome Biblical Commentary on the issue of allegory asserts that the allegorical view does not seem to do justice to the often brutal realism of the symbolic action of the prophets’ .Nor to the intensity of Hosea’s words. Moreover, one expects details like the name Gomer and the sexes of the children to have meanings in an allegory, but according to B. W Brown they do not have meaning in this context.(pg 15.9)

The first Jezreel punning close to Israel refers back to the bloody coup of Jehu in the Israel was to expiate the blood shed by its ancestor. The name of the second daughter Lo Ruhama (Not Pitied) meant that the period of divine mercy and of forgiveness and therefore of prophetic intercession, had run-out. It reminds the fateful point in time between the second and third visions of Amos when the word of mercy .Amos 7 vs3 ‘I will no longer pass by them. ‘I will no longer have pity on the house of Israel’. The third child’s name ''Lo Ammi'' ''Not my people'' marked the end of the special relationship established long ago in the wilderness between Yahweh and Moses '‘You are not my people and I am not your God''.(R .Brown 15.9)Some scholars are of the view that the time  between every child was grace period for Israel to repent. 

Scholars like J. Lindlom   take this as an historical event .The hypothesis most favours and present the marriage as historical and the grounds for it are the obvious sense of the narrative the absence of any symbolic sense in the words Gomer and Abelaim that the second child is a daughter (120).

According to B.W Anderson he stipulates that the problem with the book of Hosea is that they are different types of material presented in chapter 1-3 it is written in the third person narrative person narrative of biography and 3 is written in the first person narrative .So do all Chapters 1 and 3 represent a sequence of events in the prophet’s experience with one women, Gomer? The unnamed women of chapter 3 is not identified with Gomer some scholars alludes that the auto-biography chapter depict Hosea with another women .In this argument the probability is on the side of the view that these chapters recounts Hosea’s experience with a single women. A different perspective alludes that the other women was introduced in chapter 3 one would expect more explicit mention of it .Moreover, the analogy with the estranged Gomer just as Yahweh takes back the same Israel he was rejected .In addition the purchase price said the amount of 30 shekels the price of a slave paying the slave usual bride price.(247) The new wife must live secluded for a bride price which maybe is either punishment or a kind of training but more signifying that she is ritually unclean because she had joined the pagan rites. Only after a time of seclusion could a follower of Yahweh associate with her.

Moreso,H. Otwell in his book A new Approach to the old testament postulates that Gomer the prophets’ wife called a wife of harlotry but the more accurate translation, wife of harlotry suggest that she shared in the harlotry .R.B.Y Scott shares the same sentiments when he asserts that the fertility cult once a primitive natural science and a religion .According to it’s mythology a male deity annually when vegetation withered was mourned and sought in the underworld by his goddess consort ,and was brought back to earth by her with resurrection of vegetation in the spring ,they were then remarried to insure the generation of new life .It is not surprising that that the scared prostitution was a feature of the cults of his form of religion .The recognition that Hosea’s wife on whose stem much of the prophet’s message  turns ,was probably one of these temple prostitutions (104)

As Hosea’s wife was defiled Israel was also defiled and her love was like morning cloud ,and like dew was a child he loved him and called his son out of Egypt .The prophet was the moral worthy and immediate able to distinguish good from bad and to define it as justice ,humanity faithfulness and truth .My people are destroyed because they lack knowledge cries Hosea.Yahweh has a quarrel against the inhabitants of the land ,because no truth ,no love and no knowledge of the word of God in the land.(J.Blenkinsopp. 97)
Gomer symbolising Israel gave Hosea a difficulty period because of the immoral behaviour .It was a dark period of Israel's history ,the period of decline and   and  fall .The sins had brought upon them great national disaster .Thier homicides  and fonication,their perjury and theft idolatry and impiety are censured and satirised with with a faithful severity.The symbolically representing the idolatry of Israel under imagery borrowed from the matrimanial relation.(J H Otwell .287)                                      

In conclusion one can infer that Hosea’s message was based on his symbolic marriage to Gomer who was a scared prostitute. His message depicts Yahweh’s unconditional love to an adulterous nation Israel the point being that God’s love is constant it does not change even at the peak of the sins of Israel. As a prophet Hosea was there to convince Israelites to stop sinning and return to Yahweh.

*To subscribe Daily Question and answers*,
Call/app *Brian Maregedze*
+263779210440

*For free published sample essays follow*
Divinityhistoryalevel.blogspot.com
or Facebook page Divinity and History A' level

*It is not the answer which enlightens but the question-author unknown*

Tsarist regime and its fall

Question: Why Did The Tsarist Regime Fall In 1917 Despite Of The Reforms Introduced From 1906?
‘Historians disagree on whether the revolution was inevitable by mid 1914.’ Taking the question to a deeper level, we will query the inevitability of the revolution: whether one subscribes to the Optimist view or the Pessimist view. In the former, which is identified with by most of historians, they believe that nothing is inevitable and the direction of history may be deviated or steered in any single direction with any single event, hence in our example the February Revolution of 1917 is by no means unavoidable. Soviet historians, however, share the latter view where the revolution is historically logical and inevitable, and by 1917 the stage is set for an imminent revolution. Thus, we shall examine why the Tsarist regime fell in 1917, and then determine to what extent is the downfall of the regime inevitable.
The Tsarist regime fell in 1917 because the challenge posed by the revolutionaries was far greater and more united then any other front in Russian history. In 1905, many in Russia were not aiming for a complete overthrow of Tsarism as their intention was to force concessions such as land reform and higher wages, which were basic liberal demands that did not call for a revolutionary change as with 1917. When these concessions were made, the struggle by the masses ceased, as seen by the drastic drop in lawlessness after the cancellation of the redemption payments, from 13995 strikes in 1905 to 6114 in 1906. By introducing the reforms, the Tsar had effectively stemmed the tide of the revolution. However by 1917 ‘the situation is growing worse. The capital is in a state of anarchy. The government is paralyzed…General discontent was on the increase.’ The upsurge of the politically radicalized masses is now united by their common discontent that arose out of the incidence of World War One coupled with the poor administration of Tsarism, something which did not happen before in 1905 and that the reforms from 1906 did not effectively tackle. With the ineptness of these reforms and to a certain extent even aggravating the discontent of the Russia masses, this will bring out the next point, which is the failure of the reforms introduced from 1906.
Although ‘The October Manifesto took the wind out of their sails’ by appeasing the masses and dividing the revolutionaries, thus reducing the political threat that the Tsar had to face, yet we see in 1906 what appears to be this major step in Russia’s progressive westernization was actually only temporarily. The Fundamental Laws introduced in April 1906 reinstated the superlative control of the Tsar, such as Article 4, where ‘The All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme autocratic power.’ Furthermore Article 87, which gives the Tsar and his ministers to bypass the Duma if it is not in session, effectively taking the greatest concession that the October Manifesto gives out of the picture. ‘The net effect of all these changes was to deliver much less than the Manifesto had promised.’ and although the simple existence of the Dumas was important in itself, yet the fact remains that it only acts as a cloak of legality. The Vyborg Manifesto that was introduced in June 1906 resulted in the withdrawal of many liberals as many Kadets and left wing deputies went to Finland but were arrested, hence the Kadets were deprived of their leaders and the beginning of gradual liberal change was curtailed by the Manifesto. Lastly, the agrarian reforms introduced by the Prime Minister Peter Stolypin sought reorganization but not concession: which proved to be insufficient in its bid to save Tsarism. Although the peasants held greater control of the land (from 31% in 1877 to 47% to 1917) and the authority of the Mir was reduced, yet many peasants wished to keep the Mir system, which was seen as a form of security. Moreover, strip farming still persisted and poverty and tensions remained: the fact that troops were used 114000 times to put down disturbances in the countryside showed the degree of discontent that existed within the peasantry with regards to Stolypin’s reforms. Considering that the intention to reform was extant, yet the premises of the Stolypin legislation were false and ultimately aggravated the situation in Russia. As seen, the reforms that were introduced from 1906 not only did nothing to solve Russia’s problems or dissipate the discontent of the masses, but its inactiveness only led to culminating tensions in the expectant state of the people.
Upon hindsight, we see throughout history that there are two essential aspects to an autocracy: support and repression. As long as one of these bastions of support falls, the autocracy will hence face a challenge to its rule. As seen from above, the support for the Tsar had dissolved with the discontent of the masses, which is precipitated by the unpopular reforms that were introduced from 1906. Yet the autocracy can still survive if the Tsar retained the powers of repression, which can be seen in the case of 1905 where Tsarism had survived while revolution had failed. In 1917 conversely, the forces of coercion are slowly converted to the cause of the people: the army and the police which were originally loyal to the autocracy have now pledged their cause to the revolutionaries. General Krymov stated to Rodzianko, ‘the spirit of the army is such that news of a coup d’etat would be welcomed with joy. A revolution is imminent and we at the front feel it to be so. If you decide on such an extreme step, we will support you. Clearly there is no other way.’ The withdrawal of support for the Tsar from the armed sections of Russia proved to be a fatal blow to the autocracy as the Tsar can no longer rely upon the armies to put down revolutionary activities in its initial stages, hence the revolution will then carry itself forward in its momentum and finally overwhelm the autocracy. ‘What made the difference, finally, was that the middle-ranking enforcers of order on the streets had lost their will to use violence to maintain the status quo.’
The last, and possibly the most important reason why the Tsarist regime fell in 1917 was due to the effects of the war. It was the branch of problems that led to the boughs: without the war, the armies would have still remained loyal to the Tsar, as the incompetence of the Russian military would not have been exposed. Without the war the presence of a catalyst to precipitate years of discontent would not have existed and hence the social and economic powers of the Russian society would not have been aggravated and would have been easily quelled. World War One, put very simply, intensified the problems of the past and created problems for the present. World War One created new problems for the present as it revealed the ineptness of the military forces: the quality of the generals, military technology and leadership were way below the standards of other European countries. This hence meant that all Offensives that the Russians undertook during the war meant that it would end in failure (such as the Russian Offensive in East Prussia) and would in turn lead to the aggravation of present problems. The need to finance the war led to the government printing off rouble notes and incited inflation, while simultaneously the amalgamation of declining foreign trade due to blockades by foreign powers along with the ban on alcohol production and sales meant that the revenue for the government is drastically reduced. ‘What ignited industrial unrest after the first year of war was sheer material deprivation.’ With the double prong attack on the weaknesses of the autocracy that existed in the form of World War One, it is hence undeniable that World War One played the focal role in the fall of Tsarism in 1917 and that it both exposed and increased the vulnerability of Russia’s old regime.
In short, the intensification of the problems from 1906 coupled with the new problems brought about by the First World War, along with the failure of the reforms to solve these problems brought about the fall of the Tsarist regime in 1917. There is however a need to examine the inevitability of this collapse: ‘where the optimists regard the problems of the pre-war years as merely the teething troubles of a new westernized Russia, the pessimists consider them to have been the death throes of a chronically sick child.’ Optimists argue that in the absence of war, Russia would have continued on the road to progressive westernization due to the evidence of an economic maturity as seen in industrialization and agrarian reform. Furthermore, opposition at the time of 1914 was still divided and weak while there was still a large residual base of support for Tsarism as seen from 1913 where 300 years of Romanov rule is still celebrated. Hence, the revolution of 1917 was by no means inevitable and the Russian monarchy could have remained in power. Pessimists on the other hand believe that the fate of the Russian monarchy was decided as early as 1910. The land reforms by Stolypin were unsuccessful and incomplete in contrast to the sharp population rises (nearly 21% from 1900 to 1910), hence leading to the rise of discontent. The years of 1912 to 1914 also saw a significant rise in strike action against the relative drop from the period of 1907 to 1912. Furthermore, the State’s ability to maintain order was questionable since the Police state was only half-built. In all, ‘the society was deeply divided, and the political and bureaucratic structure was fragile and overstrained. The regime was so vulnerable to any kind of jolt or setback that it is hard to imagine that it could have survived for long, even without the war.’ A synthesis of the two views is perhaps that though signs already point towards the collapse of the Tsarist regime from as early as 1910, yet the occurrence of the war and the abscondence of the armed forces helped push these revolutionary forces towards a reality that came about in 1917.

For question and answers
Call or app Brian Maregedze
+263779210440 or follow the Facebook page.

"It is not the answer which enlightens but the question"-author, Unknown