I'm not sure what you mean. The first century had no covenant with Rome, nor did a covenant with death show up then. Nor do the passages on the covenant look like the first century not in Daniel or in Isaiah.
To be very clear.
That covenant with Death and Hades in Isaiah is yet future as is Daniels covenant. There are no covenant echoes in the first century in either one. Both passages indicate a future fulfillment.
After some Bible teacher claimed that Antiochus broke a covenant with the Jews, I remember looking up whether or not Antiochus ever had a covenant with the Jews during the Maccabbee period, and he did not.
Hi Margery. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I could have phrased that better. It's just I was kind of noticing how epicentric it seemed that Isaiah 28 does echo into the 1st century quite a bit. So point one for me would be 1) Yes, Isaiah 28 is purposefully prophetic. So this area we were discussing about the covenant with death seems to be surrounded by first century echoes prophetically. Which I had not noticed in that light prior. For example:
Isaiah 28:11-12 / 1 Cor 14:20-22
And this to me is similar to another admonition in Isaiah:
Isaiah 6:9, 10 / Matt 13:15
So there does seem to be quite a few verses in the area of Isaiah 28 that seem also to leak into the 1st century event. Actually, viewed this way, it looks like the first 13 verses imply prophetically how Israel will not hear the word of God in Christ. And in this sense, to me, it would suggest the scourge to end up being ultimately (in the prophetic to the 1st century sense) 70 AD. A testimony of Isaiah prophesy that in the sense in which the Israelites have made a covenant with death in Isaiah's time...so shall their end not escape the fright train of Rome to end their entire religious system and send them diaspora like. Is kind of how it reads to me.
So in our discussion, i was more focused on the contemporary to Isaiah's time use of "covenant with death." But as we were discussing that chapter, it became apparently how much of it pointed to the 1st century. So to me, this stopped me in my tracks. I understand you making the point Margery about extending the passage about covenant with death for the AC and end times. But what I came to realize in our discussion (in surprise) was how much of Issiah 28 is 1st century prophecy fulfilled.
So in seeing that, I had to take a step back to consider. And in considering, because so much of the gravity of Isaiah 28 seem to greatly imply the 1st century, I would naturally ask (before going further into the future), could "covenant with death" also apply to the first century? Because almost every surrounding verse to it does. If that makes sense?
. . . . .
I use what commentators say as a tier in exegesis. I also use what weight prophetically known passages have as a tier as well. I have seen in the past some use of passages we might consider to prophetically apply in the end times to be more epicentric to the 1st century. I have seen that sort of thing been done before. But I am not saying that you are doing that. I am just saying I have seen that done before (as I would see also the opposite...that passage that belong in the end times can also be imported into general "today" theology used). So I use tiers (or layers) of relevance like panning for gold. So after that panning I would see in general which way the lightning rod of scripture is struck. More toward its contemporary time written? The first century? The end times? In ways prophecy could do all three. But typically it is likely contemporary + 1st century. Or contemporary + end times. Sometimes it is all 3. But that is rarer. Perhaps here in Isaiah 28 it is all 3. But I never start with the convictions of others.
I take them in consideration but then go through my tier process to see whereabouts the convictions of others might see correctly, see more than I could, or see too much for the context. In approaching it this way, I would see that Isaiah 28 is super charged for the first century. So that is where I would naturally consider to look how "covenant with death" might fit in that 1st century context. Because it would seem all the surrounding context is also found in the 1st century.
Now "covenant with death" could be an echo of an echo from the first century too. Like part of Isaiah 28 looks at the first century. And part of it looks at the end times. This is possible. But I don't just jump in and presume that. I go through a process of ruling out or rulling in one step at a time. If that makes sense? So that is why it seems out of place for you, my comments. And they reasonably are out of place. But one thing, dear sister, I would honestly present here at this time in how iron shaprens iron, is another tier I go by too.
Tier 3: When I read scholarship, I am often looking more at what they do not include rather than what they do. If someone is knowledgeable about a topic, let's say "trees." What I am looking for is what they know about trees. Yes. But simultanously here is what I am also doing--In what they know, do they know ENOUGh to know where they are wrong? Neil Degrassio is famous for saying: They may know enough to think they are right, but may not know enough to know they are wrong. Perhaps you have seen his master class commercials on YouTube.
So Pastor Adrian is a good example of this. When he addressed the Isaiah 28 local vs whole earth discretion. There are scholars that know enough to see a potential of "local vs. whole earth." But do those scholars have enough familiarity in reference to the context of Is 28 to know how they might misapply their knowledge? And that is a very fair question. And par and parcel for tier 3 operations. Of course there are other things that can weigh-in too...so that can be a bit more of a lengthy process--like how much and how far to rule out or to rule in.
So had we started with the understanding that Is 28 is hugely prophetic toward the 1st century, that would have been a very different starting point for me. But for me, I was seeing "covenant with death" as primarily an event in time. So I was not considering how Is 28 could be prophetic. Because in my view, I had seen it applied to abstract things before. This would naturally have me hold to more saftey scholarly gournd...seeing it can be a verse used to stretch wherever. So my starting point was to see its historical fulfillment as having gravity, mostly.
The next step for me would be, "Yeah but Teren, Is 28 is proven prophetic already. Teren are you aware of that?" That right there would have been the best place for me to consider ways outside the historical fulfillment of "covenant with death." The advantage to that approach is it would have helped me to see that a) there is prophecy already going on with Is 28. And b) so maybe it extends to the end. The disadvantage to that approach is a) the prophecy it shows us pegs the first century hugely. And b) that may be its most prophetic utility, for being prophetic in the 1st century does not automatically apply it to further out in the end times. It could. But if it is already in a context weighted heavily toward the first century...the prophetic trajectory may be robustly 1st century...and not marginally 1st century (implying it goes further out to end times).
So I am hopeful to provide above why I might have been looking for "covenant with death" in the first century. Because Is 28 is top heavy first century hands down. Now that does not mean it may not use "covenant with death" for the end times. Passages can do both refer to His first and second coming as we know. But I am just trying to clarify the tier process in how I think. I hope that clears it up
Blessings.
