Posted on 12/16/2018 9:27:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
More and more scholars are becoming skeptical of Messianic prophecy in the Hebrew Bible—that is, the Old Testament. Michael Rydelnik notes that “Although evangelical scholarship still recognizes that there is something messianic about the Hebrew Bible, for the most part it sees it as a story that finds its climax in Jesus, not as predictions that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled” (Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope, 3-4). Yet, such skepticism is not justified. Sure, some passages in the Hebrew Bible have been stretched beyond its scope, something that can become a dangerous trend. Nevertheless, certain passages in the Hebrew Bible enjoy a status of being both Messianic in context and in its history.
One such Messianic prophecy is found in Isaiah 7:14. Four schools of thought have developed on how one should interpret Isaiah 7:14. Some hold to direct fulfillment indicating that the text only speaks to the fulfillment found in Messiah. Others hold to a historical fulfillment which claims that the text only addresses a birth of a child in Isaiah’s day. A third view holds to a double fulfillment in that the prophecy was fulfilled to a degree in Isaiah’s day and later in the Messiah. A fourth view is espoused by Arnold Fruchtenbaum. He calls it double reference (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua, 364). A double reference “states that the one piece of Scripture actually contains two prophecies, each having its own fulfillment” (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua, 364). After researching the passage, I must agree that in Isaiah 7:14 one finds a double reference. Although Isaiah 7:14 is among the most controversial of Messianic prophecies (Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope, 147), several good reasons exist to accept the prophecy as Messianic in scope.
1. King Ahaz and House of David. To understand the passage, one must understand the chapter in which Isaiah 7:14 is found. Isaiah comes to King Ahaz while Ahaz and King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel were reigning. Yahweh (the personal name for God) tells Isaiah to bring his son Shear-jashub with him to meet Ahaz (Is. 7:3). Yahweh speaks to Isaiah again telling him to ask Ahaz for a sign (7:10-11) but Ahaz refuses (7:12). After Ahaz refuses, Isaiah turns his attention to the house of David (7:13) asking if they would try the patience of Yahweh. It is then that Isaiah delivers the Immanuel prophecy. From keeping the text in context, Yahweh through Isaiah is addressing two distinct groups of people. On the one hand, he is addressing King Ahaz. On the other hand, he is addressing the house of David. The Immanuel prophecy is given to the house of David and not to King Ahaz. King Ahaz’s sign was found in Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub who already reached the age of accountability and chose to do what was right. Ahaz was much older and still chose to do what was evil. Thus, Ahaz’s kingdom was coming to an end.
2. Singular and Plural Language. A close examination of the Hebrew text shows a difference in the language used directed toward Ahaz as opposed to the house of David. When Isaiah is addressing Ahaz, he uses singular language and uses plural language when speaking to the house of David. As Fruchtenbaum noted earlier, the text appears to be giving two differing prophecies—one to Ahaz and one to the house of David. Since the Immanuel prophecy is directed to the house of David, it is not necessary to hold that the prophecy only addresses Ahaz and even his time.
3. Present and Future Language. In the Immanuel prophecy, Isaiah uses the Hebrew imperfect verb yitten, which means “he will give,” to describe the timing of the prophecy. The imperfect verb in Hebrew describes something that is incomplete and will transpire at some point in the future. Thus, the sign for the house of David was a sign given by God to transpire at some point in the future. When? The text does not say. Therefore, it is completely appropriate to think that the text could find its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah.
4. ‘Almah and Parthenos. The Revised Standard Version translation made a great deal of waves in the Christian community when it translated ‘almah as “young woman” instead of the classical translation of “virgin.” Does the term refer to a young woman or a virgin? The answer is both. ‘Almah is almost always used in the Hebrew Bible to denote a young woman who has just reached the age of marriage who had not yet wed. ‘Almah is used in the following passages in the Hebrew Bible: 1) Gen. 24:43 used of Rebekah; 2) Ex. 2:8 used of Miriam, Moses’s sister; 3) Ps. 68:25 used in the divine royal procession, the virgins symbolize purity; 4) So. 1:3 refers to the purity in marriage; 5) So. 6:8 contrasts the purity of virginity with the impurity of concubines; 6) Pr. 30:18-19 also contrasts virginity with adultery; and 7) in Is. 7:14 (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua, 364-365). In Jewish culture, a young woman who just reached the age of marriage most certainly implied the woman’s virginal status. The translators of the Septuagint (LXX) understood this to be the case. The LXX translates ‘almah in Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek term parthenos which most certainly means “virgin.”
5. Current and Future Understanding. Isaiah connects the birth of the child from Isaiah 7:14 to the prophecies given in 9:6-7 and in 11:1-10. Thus, the prophet took the view at the time the prophecy was given that this promised child would come at some point in the future. This child would be linked intrinsically with God in some fashion. But not only did Isaiah understand the prophecy in this way, others did also. Micah is one such example. Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah’s, linked his prophecy in some sense with that of Isaiah 7:14. Micah notes that “Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; one will come from you to be ruler over Israel for me. His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times” (Mi. 5:2). As already noted, the translators of the LXX understood Isaiah 7:14 to refer to a virgin in the 100s BC. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 was recognized to be Messianic, or at least more prophetic than some modern scholars, as well as by early Christians, such as Matthew 1:23.
Isaiah 7:14 is a glorious passage that prophesies the birth of a royal, divine king that was to be born in the most miraculous of fashions. In our attempt to properly interpret the Bible, let us not be drawn to a hyper-skepticism that very well could combat the very thinking of the writers of the New Testament. They held the text to be Messianic not because they made it that way, but because that was the prophetic intention of the text.
Sources
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Yeshua: The Life of Messiah from a Messianic Jewish Perspective. Volume One. San Antonio, TX: Ariel, 2017.
Rydelnik, Michael. The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? NAC Studies in Bible & Theology. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
Moses...put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remains the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it [Isreal] shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.2 Cor 3:13-16
Coming soon...
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (Matthew 1:23).
Settles it for the Christian.
I Corinthians 1: 19-21. That tells me all I need to know about theologians.
Amen
The word occurs just seven times in the OT. In six cases the implication that the person was a virgin was never questioned, and indeed is not questioned today. What is wrong with #7? Answer: after it was interpreted as prophesying Jesus, the exegetes changed the interpretation retroactively.
They changed much else, but that is perhaps for another day.
There is no miraculous prophetic significance in a “young woman” bearing a son named Emmanuel. The word “almah” does mean “maiden”, hence “virgin”. The word that would denote an unmarried young woman who was not a virgin would be “zanah”.
The other Hebrew word “bathulah” has the literal meaning of “virgin daughter”.
If we read into Isaiah further:
Isaiah 9
Leaves no doubt, Isaiah 7, is a prophecy of coming events as well!
What’s the point in mentioning the mother and the conception if there wasn’t something extraordinary about it? History books talk about Abraham Lincoln being born in 1809. No mention of his mother conceiving and giving birth to him, because that goes without saying. Focusing on a historical hero’s conception by definition implies it was out of the ordinary
Paul was speaking of his time, though certainly, the same can be said of today.
Why can't anyone see that?
Honestly, as the answer to a question about whether they shall make their God weary, it almost sounds sarcastic. As if “yeah, as soon as a virgin conceives...”
Someone's resistance to God's Word is not something about which we need to be upset. So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:11
That's nothing about which to upset about. Hopefully such a person who came to faith by hearing God's Word and will soon recognize the essential truth contained within that Word and find that same faith throughout His Word (Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 10:17)
Though Matthew's quoting Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 in Mt. 1:23, no doubt should remain. So, why does it (1 Cor 1:18-21)?
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20
Thus nothing that persons says, believes or interprets changes what God has caused and inspired to be written.
The Isaiah 7:14 literary device claims truth, as does the rest of Scripture. As logic is a construct of man which came only many centuries after the Bible was written, nothing in the bible should be considered man's attempt at proving something.
If God considered proof His ultimate goal through the bible, we could all simply believe in God because His existence would have been proved there, in black and white (and maybe some red if your bible puts Christ's words in red). God does want His words to be read (or at least heard).
No, God knows that true faith is not simply the result of a proof, akin to simply proving to us that he exists, as any properly programmed computer could do in mindless, heartless response. We have a divine trait of free will and can choose to follow at his call, or not. He desires that we have a saving faith and graciously has given us that gift.
As with Paul speaking in Rome, Some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believe. Acts 28:24
Its often difficult for those attuned to logic to appreciate the way God's people in millennia past Word understood his Word to embody truth again and again.
There have many times been fore-shadowings of things that were to come, often as seen as a contrast between Old Testament, where there were things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ, as in the New Testament. Col. 2:17
In the Old Testament, God's presence was seen in the tabernacle and in the Jews' temples on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, but the woman at the well, when she asked Jesus where the proper place was to worship, Mt. Gerazim, where the Samaritans worshiped, or in Jerusalem. Jesus doesn't reflexively say "at the temple in Jerusalem, of course," but adds the dimension of "in spirit and in truth. Add to that the further revelation in Acts 17:25 that "the Lord of heaven and earth does not dwell in temples made with hands." That probably came as purely heretical to some in his audience, just as some modern day skeptics don't wish to hear of a virgin giving birth in the time of Isaiah having the least little thing to do with Mary, Jesus' mother.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Romans 5:14
Hebrews compares Jesus to Melchizedek, saying, "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.
God's truth resonates throughout Scripture. Resonates...
a lesson for another day!
Pax tecum.
Jesus said (to the unbelieving Jews) “You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, BUT THEY ARE THEY WHICH TESTIFY OF ME”.
Jesus is all over the Hebrew scriptures.
Exactly.
Scripture tells us it was the fulfillment of prophecy.
The only reason to challenge or doubt it is to question the deity of Christ.
Do that and the whole plan of salvation falls.
Satan would love nothing better.
Welcome to FR.
Your post makes no sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.