Quote:
Q: In Matthew 1:23, Matthew says that the virgin birth of Christ is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. But Isaiah 7:14 seems to be about someone else entirely. Do these passages really have anything to do with each other?
A: Yes, but the fulfillment here is the fulfillment of a typological pattern, not the fulfillment of a direct prediction.
The term for "fulfilled" in Matthew 1:22 is:
Quote:
pleroo
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
--- a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
------ 1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete
--- a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
--- b) to consummate: a number
------- 1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
------- 2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
--- c) to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize
------- 1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute
------- 2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
------- 3) to fulfill, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment
I don't see anything in the definition dealing with simply a "typological pattern." I have emboldened the portions of the definition that make sense with regard to Matthew's claims of Jesus "fulfilling" what the "prophets" said. Clearly, Matthew is claiming a fulfillment of predictive prophecy.
Quote:
Lets look at Isaiah 7:14 in context:
My suggestion exactly!
Quote:
King Ahaz -- one of the bad kings of Judah -- was very worried about a recent alliance that had been formed between the Northern Kingdom (Israel -- sometimes referred to as Ephraim because the tribe of Ephraim was generally the most influential tribe in the Northern Kingdom) and the Syrians, threatening the northern border not far from Jerusalem. Isaiah visited him and essentially told him not to worry -- both of the enemy nations would soon lose their momentum. Isaiah invited Ahaz to ask for a sign that this would take place. Ahaz ~ possibly thinking that he was being tested ~ declined. Then Isaiah announced the sign that would nevertheless be given: The virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and she shall call his name Emmanuel. Thats the part that Matthew quotes. But Isaiah went on to say that by the time the young child with the token-name of Emmanuel knows how to choose good over evil, both Syria and Israel will have different rulers.
Who was this special child in the days of Isaiah? None other than Isaiahs second son, who was also given the long name Maher-shalal-Hashbaz.
Exactly! Despite what Matthew claims, Isaiah was not talking about Jesus, but rather Isaiah's own son, born in Isaiah 8.
Quote:
Heres the deal: Isaiah already had a son (Shear-jashub, mentioned in Isaiah 7:3) and was about to marry a prophetess. We are not told if Isaiahs first wife had died or not. The prophetess, at the time Isaiah spoke to Ahaz, was a virgin. Isaiah did not mean that a woman was going to given birth without having intercourse with a man.
Precisely! Contrary to what Matthew claim, Isaiah's prophecy had nothing to do with virginal conception!
Quote:
Isaiah meant that Ahaz would be able to observe the deliverance of the nation gradually but effectively occur in stages, in the time it would take from Isaiahs wife-to-be to be married, and give birth to a son, and grow up to the point of knowing right from wrong. The conception, birth, and maturation of Isaiahs son would be a visible sign that God was on the side of the nation of Judah (and this explains his special name, Emmanuel, meaning God with us, i.e., God is with us).
Exactly! Again, it has nothing to do with Jesus.
Quote:
This should clear up something right away: the Hebrew term almah that is used here really does mean, in this context, maiden in the sense of virgin female. The translators of the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah were correct to represent almah by the Greek word parthenos.
Actually, it does not clear that up. Many Hebrew scholars insist that "almah" has no "virgin" connotation whatsoever, and you have not proven them wrong. Even if the prophetess was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, that does not automatically mean that "almah" means "virgin." The term literally means "young woman," who may or may not be a virgin.
Quote:
Isaiah was referring to a woman who was, at the moment that he delivered the message in Isaiah 7 to King Ahaz, a virgin.
Quite possible, but Isaiah clearly was not prophesying a virginal conception, as Matthew claims.
Quote:
So, thats whats going on in Isaiah 7. (If you still have any doubts that Isaiahs son Maher-shalal-Hashbaz = the Emmanuel child, compare Isaiah 7:14-16 with Isaiah 8:3-4.)
Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I've suggested it a few times on this board myself. Isaiah was talking about the child in chapter 8, not Jesus.
Quote:
However, Isaiah also stated that he and his children were for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts (in 8:18) -- i.e., their actions have significance beyond their own normal spheres.
Isaiah's claim that he and his children were signs for Israel is rather immaterial to the fact that the prophecy in 7:14 is reported as already fulfilled in 8:3.
Quote:
Isaiah spoke of another child who could in no way be his son Maher-shalal-Hashbaz, in Isaiah 9:6 -- Unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder. And his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince of peace. Aint no way that such words apply to Isaiahs son.
I agree that chapter 9 is not speaking of the same son born in chapter 8, but that's completely immaterial to the fact that the prophecy in chapter 7 is depicted as already fulfilled in chapter 8.
Quote:
Thus Isaiahs prophecy is sort of like a seed within a seed, or a picture within a picture -- one level of which is harvested and revealed in Isaiahs time, and another level of which is not revealed until the arrival of Jesus.
If so, then why did Matthew erroneously apply the one "harvested and revealed in Isaiah's time" to Jesus?
Quote:
As Maher-shalal-hashbaz, the virgins son (i.e., anticipated while she was a virgin), was a sign of deliverance, and of the destruction of the enemys kingdoms, similarly Jesus, the virgins son (in a literal sense)...
No, Jesus is not "the virgin's son (in a literal sense)." Isaiah was not talking about Jesus when he mentioned the child of the virgin (literally, "young woman").
Quote:
Jesus... was a sign of spiritual deliverance, and of the destruction of the enemys reign and the establishment of Gods kingdom under the Prince of Peace.
Or so the NT claims.
Quote:
So, Isaiah 7:14 is not the amazing prediction that some apologists have said it is.
At least we agree on something!
Quote:
(Isaiah did, though, correctly predict that the child would be a male and that Israel and Syria would proceed to fall apart when the Assyrians attacked.)
You don't know that. Isaiah 7 and 8 could have been written at the same time, claiming a prophecy that never happened.
Quote:
It had a meaning that was relevant to Isaiah and his contemporaries. At the same time, that was not its only meaning. The Emmanuel child established a pattern of how God signifies His will to protect and deliver His people, and that pattern is what we see fulfilled in Matthew 1.
Yet Matthew doesn't claim that it's only a fulfillment of a "pattern," nor does the definition of "fulfilled" give any such indication. You can rationalize away practically any Bible problem when you have a wild imagination, can't you, Waterrock?
Take care......
"As for the truth, it seems like we just pick a theory." -- Emily Saliers of Indigo Girls
