Both are important.
That is incorrect. The word in Isa 7:14 means "young woman". Matthew chose to be more specific when applying it to Mary, a virginal young woman.
Exactly, but here is the issue you must face. You say that Matthew saw the meaning as "virgin" and applied it to Mary.
</font>[/QUOTE]Close, but wrong. You do not understand my view. I do NOT say that Matthew saw the meaning as "virgin" and applied it to Mary, I say Matthew restricted the meaning when applying it to Mary. Small but important difference.
Suppose there was a prophecy about a "fruit". Within a few short years, it was fulfilled by a banana. A few centuries later, another finds another "fulfillment" (the type of fulfillment Matt uses in 2:15) of the original prophecy in an apple, recognizing that the original prophecy did not specify what kind of fruit and also recognizing that it was already primarily fulfilled with a banana. That's what I see going on here. Both an apple and a banana are a "fruit". Both a virgin and a non-virgin can be an "almah" (young woman). No illegitimate hermeneutics. No denying the basics of communication.
See, you still do not understand. I don't know where you got the idea that there are two meanings, "virgin" and "non-virgin", when I have repeatedly stated that the "almah" ("young woman") in Ahaz's time may or may not have been a "virgin" at the time the prophecy was given (but not when she conceived).
No I didn't. I never thought you denied the virgin birth. Not sure where you got that from.
</font>[/QUOTE]I got it from where you said "Matthew says that Mary was that virgin, and she knew no man." I responded "I agree", and you responded "But you are going on several pages of disagreeing."
I never thought that either. I don't know where you came up with that.
</font>[/QUOTE]From where you said "But Matthew says you are incorrect. He said it referred to a virgin."
Larry, I know that. Your question is like me asking you about Mary "How is a virgin a sign? There are virgins all over the place." See, when you refer to only PART of the sign, of course it makes it less practical. The sign in Ahaz's day was that a young woman, whose identity (I believe) was obvious to Ahaz, would soon conceive and give birth and name the child Immanuel and that before he was old enough to choose right from wrong, the enemy kings would be overthrown. That's the sign.
Again, apparently not. I do NOT say "she is both". :rolleyes:
They shall call His name Emmanuel or Jesus?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Phil310, Dec 9, 2005.
Page 3 of 3
-
-
</font>[/QUOTE]From where you said "But Matthew says you are incorrect. He said it referred to a virgin."</font>[/QUOTE]This statement seems totally jumbled. Your premise (that I argued that you didn't understand Matthew used the Greek word for virgin) does not match up with your proof. First, I never argued as if you didn't understand that. The fact is that Matthew did use the Greek word for virgin and I assume you knew that. He further clarifies it by saying "did not know a man until ..." That means Matthew twice explains what Isaiah was referring to, and yet you still say Isaiah was referring to a young woman who was naturally pregnant during Ahaz's time. Matthew says you are incorrect. He says that Isaiah meant "virgin."
If someone treated your language the way that you are treating Isaiah's you would be furious. If you told your daughter she could spend $20 at the mall, and she came back and having spent $60, you wouldn't be happy. She says, "Well I only spent $20. I just did it three times," you would accuse her of disobedience. And you would be right, but you would also be inconsistent because you are abusing Isaiah's words in similar fashion.
A word can only mean one thing in a given context. That is axiomatic in language, and in order to disprove it you have to assume it. In this case, Isaiah either meant non-virgin (as your option A) or virgin (your option B). I believe he meant virgin. He didn't mean both.
I think it is clear that I do understand your view, perhaps better than you because I have wrestled through the implications of it. I don't think you have. -
I was going to provide a full response, as several things you still do not understand, but I'll bite my tongue and focus on one statement that I think is the crux of the matter:
-
-
AMEN, NATTERS!!!
Although I do not necessarily think that Isaiah had something beside virgin in mind when he wrote 14:7, there is a definite possibility that he meant young woman instead of virgin. From the context there is no way to absolutely determine what Isaiah had in mind, and we certainly cannot see into his head or ask him what he had in mind. To admit that your theory could be a possibility is not a concession that the theory is absolutely correct. But it is an acceptance that there could have been something else in Isaiah's mind when he wrote the passage in question. As of now I wash my hands of the entire matter. It isn't worth wasting our time to show that Isaiah could have had something in mind beside the narrow definition virgin when he used the word almah, even though that is a definite possibility.
[ December 12, 2005, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: Keith M ] -
So far, everything else you have is standard fare for your position and I understand it perfectly. I don't think you understand the implications of it.
Again, it looks like you have thought through the implications of this.
But remember, the point is not what the word "can" mean, but what it "does" mean. In a context, a word can mean only one thing.
In the end, we are still talking past one another. I believe it is because you have not through through the implications of your position. You claim it is because I don't understand. Having read thousands of pages on Isaiah 7, I can say with relative assurance that the problem isn't that I don't understand your position. As I said, I do understand it, and in fact could make a case for it and sound like I believed it.
What's at stake here is the nature of prophecy and the integrity of the text. You don't deny the virgin birth, and neither do I. I presume you don't deny the inspiration of Scripture, and neither do I. But the problem is that when we start using texts willy-nilly (a Hebrew term), then we end up with all kinds of things.
I don't see what is lost by not having a "ha'almah harah" in the time of Isaiah. I see much that is lost by saying that Matthew used the passage in a way that Isaiah did not intend.
I will close with this: When you or Keith say that I don't recognize that "almah" can mean young woman, you are both wrong. I have said that for a long time. I am in contradiction to much of conservative scholarship on that.
Here is Keith's objection: "The major problem with the single meaning hermeneutic is trying to recreate authorial intent. Since the interpreter has no access (beyond the words) to the author’s state of mind, he can at best only make logical deductions about what the author was thinking. Therefore, according to the critic of the single intent model, the interpreter is chasing after something largely unattainable. However, if one assumes (as he should) that the author chose the words that would best convey his intention in a way that would be understood by the reader, this problem is minimized (though perhaps not fully eradicated)."
Here is part of Natters' issues: "The major problem with sensus plenior is that it opens the door to interpretations that are not governed by any discernible textual indicators. Thus sensus plenior runs the risk of robbing the text of any significant meaning to the original reader since they did not have the later revelation that unlocked the “real” or deeper meaning. It also introduces a variable of subjectivity since meaning has been removed from the text and placed in the realm of the interpreter’s view of the text in light of his understanding of later revelation."
Continued: "Since the overriding presupposition in communication is the fact that a hearer can legitimately comprehend the intent of the speaker, authorial intent is not as elusive as the critics might suggest. The speaker believes it is within his power to choose words that can be understood to communicate what he wishes to communicate. If the speaker thought otherwise, he would likely not even attempt to communicate. If he thinks a word or phrase might be misunderstood, he will choose a different word or phrase, or add qualifiers to clarify his intent; in short, he will change it so that he will not be misunderstood. Such interaction demands commonality of usage between the author and the reader (and ultimately the interpreter) so that the recipient will be able to understand a given linguistic sign or combination of linguistic signs in the manner in which the author intends them. If the recipient fails at this basic level, rational discourse is rendered impossible. Therefore, the speaker uses signs or symbols that he believes the hearer will understand in the same manner in which the speaker intends them. Thus, a commonality of meaning for a sign or a set of signs is assumed."
The question is, Did Isaiah intend a young non-virgin birth in the time of Ahaz, or did he intended the virgin birth of Christ?
I say the latter. I am not sure if natters has wrestled with Isaiah's intent, what Isaiah wanted the hearer c. 730BC to understand. That is the key issue. What did Isaiah intend? If he had intended a young woman, non-virgin, in his time, he could have said it another way to make it clear.
If, on the other hand, Isaiah intended a virgo intacta, this is the way hw would say it. A virgo intacta would have been what was commonly understood, given the lexical data. Therefore, I believe part of this problem stems from failing to understand how langauge was used at that time, and the univocal nature of language.
In the end, is this a big deal? No, not really in many ways. But it does have some serious implications.
I have enjoyed the exchange, though. -
</font>[/QUOTE]We've already discussed two other examples from Matthew. You brushed them off as "analogical", even though they are prefaced with the same words about fulfillment of what the Lord said through a prophet.
-
Let’s try again … just for fun.
Originally posted by natters:
You said "You say that Matthew saw the meaning as "virgin" and applied it to Mary." Again, that's not what I say. You said "YOu say she is both." I do not say that, I say there are two "she"s.Click to expand...
You said "You have one word (almah) in one context (Isa 7:14) having two meanings (non-virgin and virgin)". Those are not my two meanings. I have one meaning, "young woman".Click to expand...
Also I have repeatedly said that perhaps the woman in Ahaz's day was a "virgin" at the time the prophecy was givin - so if this was true, I again admit that it is possible that Isaiah did mean "virigin", and again there is only "one meaning" for the word.Click to expand...
How can you say you understand perfectly when you make errors about what I say?Click to expand...
We've already discussed two other examples from Matthew. You brushed them off as "analogical", even though they are prefaced with the same words about fulfillment of what the Lord said through a prophet.Click to expand...
One meaning!!!! "Young woman"! Applied to two women: one whose virginity is not specified (she may have been, when the prophecy was given), and another who definitly is a virgin.Click to expand...
I believe Mary was a virgin, and she was one of the fulfillments of "that" almah. She was "that virgin" in the sense that she, as a virgin, was a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy about an almah. I did NOT mean that Isaiah only had Mary in mind.Click to expand...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There is no unambiguous use of "almah" to refer to anything but a virgin. The only unambiguous use of the root term is Isa 54 where alumim (a derivative) is used for barren women.Click to expand...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Some fruits are apples, some are not - that doesn't mean I'm saying a "fruit" can be both an apple and a banana.Click to expand...
</font>[/QUOTE]In my analogy, "fruit" = "almah". "apple" = "virgin". Now reread what you just said. Isaiah did not say "virgin" (the specific), he said "almah" (the unspecific).[/quote]I understand, but remember that “fruit” can be apple or banana or both. “A fruit” can be an apple or banana, but “a fruit” cannot be both. Isaiah’s language (definite article-noun-adjective: the virgin pregnant) indicates that Isaiah had “a fruit” (to use your analogy), not “fruit” in general. Again, that is a grammatical argument.
Thjen why, when you tell me what I say, you get it wrong?Click to expand...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I see much that is lost by saying that Matthew used the passage in a way that Isaiah did not intend.Click to expand...
In my view, neither. He intended a young woman birth, with a child NAMED Immanuel (which there is none in your view) where, before he's old enough to choose right from wrong, the two kings coming against Judah will be no longer a threat.Click to expand...
Don't go playing that game. I could say "If he had intended a young woman, a virgin, 700 years in the future (after everyone who the sign was for was long dead), who would not name the child "Immanuel" but name him something else, whose birth would have nothing to do with the immediate threat of the two enemy kings, and whose timing of the ability to choose right from wrong is completely irrelevant, he could have said it another way to make it clear."Click to expand...
What was the threat? Vv. 1-9 reveal that the threat was that the Davidic ruler (Ahaz) would be removed by the son of Tabeel. If he succeeded, then the Davidic covenant would be broken and God would be a liar since he promised no one but a son of David would sit on the throne of Israel.
The sign was the promise that the Davidic covenant would not be broken. And what was the promise? A virgin born descendant of David who would rule on the throne. This theme is carried on in chapter 9 and 11. So the promise is directly related. The Davidic covenant would not be broken. Christ would be born and ensure the perpetual continuance of the covenant. -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Let’s try again … just for fun.Click to expand...
Originally posted by natters:
I know you said that. But Isaiah said there was one (singular). Who should we go with?Click to expand...
Yet you say “she” is a non-virgin in Isaiah’s time, someone known to Ahaz, and a virgin in Matthew’s time. That is …count them out loud … two meanings: 1) non-virgin and 2) virgin. You are trying to cut it thin using “young woman,” but that clearly won’t work.Click to expand...
But again, read the text and see that it is a pregnant virgin (ha’almah harah) in Isaiah’s speech. There was no pregnant virgin in Ahaz’s time.Click to expand...
I haven’t made errors about what you have said.Click to expand...
And we have shown how those examples are completely dissimilar. Remember the “waterloo” example I gave? I didn’t brush them off. I address them head on.Click to expand...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />One meaning!!!! "Young woman"! Applied to two women: one whose virginity is not specified (she may have been, when the prophecy was given), and another who definitly is a virgin.Click to expand...
</font>[/QUOTE]I know. If you understood my view, you would see that that is beside the point.
That’s what I thought … But since you said it, I figured I would push a little bit.Click to expand...
Which there is none in my view? OF course there is a child named Immanuel in my view. We know him as Christ.Click to expand...
But here again, you say Isaiah intended “a young woman.” That means one. He did not intend “young women” (two: one then and one later).Click to expand...
What was the threat? Vv. 1-9 reveal that the threat was that the Davidic ruler (Ahaz) would be removed by the son of Tabeel. If he succeeded, then the Davidic covenant would be broken and God would be a liar since he promised no one but a son of David would sit on the throne of Israel.Click to expand...
What's the point of mentioning the part I bolded, a very specific time in the life of the child, in that verse if it would happen before ALL times in the child's life? -
Originally posted by natters:
If you understood my view, you would know already.Click to expand...
Argh. One meaning. Young woman.Click to expand...
And AGAIN, I do NOT say the young woman in Ahaz's time was necessarily an non-virgin.Click to expand...
But the text does not say "pregnant virgin",Click to expand...
Saying they are dissimilar, and talking about "waterloo", is not addressing them head on. It is grasping at straws and hoping I don't call you on it.Click to expand...
Jesus was never NAMED Immanuel. That's the point of this whole thread from the very first post.Click to expand...
I believe Matthew applied this passage to Mary and Jesus, just as he applied[/i] Hos 11:1 to Mary and Jesus, even though that's not what Hosea meant, and even though Hosea did not have "two sons" in mind. I don't know how much clearer I can be.Click to expand...
Isa 7:16 "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."
What's the point of mentioning the part I bolded, a very specific time in the life of the child, in that verse if it would happen before ALL times in the child's life?Click to expand...
The connection of Immanuel, born 730 years later, to the short-term deliverance that will occur before the child can reject bad and choose good is to be seen in a hypothetical birth. In the mind of the prophet, the virgin he sees is currently pregnant, and therefore, he gives his prophecy concerning deliverance on the basis of the imminent birth. While v. 14 gives a clear prediction of a birth that takes place 730 years from the time of prediction, vv. 15–16 use the infancy period of that birth to assure the deliverance of the nation from a threatening coalition. This deliverance will occur within two or three (or possibly twelve or thirteen) years. Answering those to whom this long-term birth seems incongruous with a sign for Ahaz, Young says,
"Whether we like it or no [sic], Isaiah did utter in one verse a direct prediction and in the subsequent verse made the subject of that prediction a symbol of the situation existing in his own day. That he did so cannot really be brought forth as an objection against the prophecy as it stands. No doubt it is difficult, with our prosaic western minds, to grasp the rich symbolism of the Old Testament prophecies as we should. But we should be able to see that the procedure of the prophet, when studied in the light of all Scripture, was perfectly justifiable."
Isaiah, using a prophecy which is imminent in his mind, assures the house of David that the Syro-Ephraimite coalition will not prevail against them. To the contrary, before the child, born of the already pregnant virgin in his vision, is two or three years old, Judah will be free. Thus, Isaiah’s prophecy has a hypothetical near fulfillment, i.e., “A child will be born to a virgin, and if that child were born today, before he is two to three years old, Judah will be free from the Syro-Ephraimite coalition that is currently threatening the Davidic dynasty.”
Alexander points out the problem with such an understanding: “The conditional expression on which it all depends [if that child were born today]…is precisely that which is omitted, and of which the text contains no intimation.” However, it must be recognized that in the mind of Isaiah the virgin was currently pregnant. There is, to him, no conditionality to the prophecy. This is consistent with what the NT tells us concerning the prophetic vision of the OT prophets in 1 Peter 1:10–12: “As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow” (NASB). Clearly, though there was much the OT prophets did understand, they were limited as to the time frame in which their messianic prophecies would be fulfilled and possibly limited as to the identification of the person who would fulfill them. In Isaiah’s case here, it can be asserted that he knew exactly what he was prophesying: A miraculous virgin conception and birth would be accomplished as a sign of God’s intent to be with his people. In his mind, it was a present situation. The birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:3–4) becomes a second, separate but parallel, sign to act as a time marker. -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You can't go with "The young woman in Ahaz's time" becuase of what Matthew said. To say "I believe Matthew applied this verse to Mary and Jesus just like he applied Hos 11:1 to Mary and Jesus, even though there was only one "son" (singular)" is to miss the point of the prophecy and the obvious use of Hos 11:1.Click to expand...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Argh. One meaning. Young woman.Click to expand...
</font>[/QUOTE]Nice. Put a big grinnig smilie on an insult, and that makes it OK. Grow up, Mr. Pastor Moderator.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And AGAIN, I do NOT say the young woman in Ahaz's time was necessarily an non-virgin.Click to expand...
</font>[/QUOTE]Are you not reading my posts carefully? I've lost count of how many times I've said it was possible she was a virgin at the time the prophecy was given. Why do you keep asking questions like this, if you really understand my position?
No, actually that is exactly what it says. "ha'almah harah" is "pregnant virgin.Click to expand...
I haven't grasped at one straw. BUt I can't answer a non-question any differently. You are comparing apples and oranges and I can't pretend they are the same to satisfy you.Click to expand...
And what child in Ahaz's time was named Immanuel?Click to expand...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What's the point of mentioning the part I bolded, a very specific time in the life of the child, in that verse if it would happen before ALL times in the child's life?Click to expand...
I'm done. Even though your reply will contain even more misrepresentations and misunderstandings of my view, with some minor insults likely thrown in for good measure, I'm getting off this merry-go-round. Think what you want about me, and I'll return the favor. -
Originally posted by natters:
If it's how Matthew used Hos 11:1 (and other OT passages), it's possible that's how he used Isa 7:14. I believe it was. Nothing you have said has proven otherwise.Click to expand...
Nice. Put a big grinnig smilie on an insult, and that makes it OK. Grow up, Mr. Pastor Moderator.Click to expand...
Are you not reading my posts carefully?Click to expand...
I've lost count of how many times I've said it was possible she was a virgin at the time the prophecy was given. Why do you keep asking questions like this, if you really understand my position?Click to expand...
So every Bible translation has it wrong, and the non-existent "Larry's Version" corrects all other Bibles? Please.Click to expand...
You haven't explained the difference. You mentioned "waterloo", but you have not clearly demonstrated that: 1. "analogical" is really how Matt used Hos 11:1 (despite what Matthew himself said), and 2. Matthew didn't do the same thing with Isa 7:14 that he did with Hos 11:1.Click to expand...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And what child in Ahaz's time was named Immanuel?
Click to expand...
Why did Isaiah say "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" and not "For before the child is born..." or "For before the child learns to speak..." or "For before the child becomes an adult..." or "For before the child dies..." or similar?Click to expand...
Even though your reply will contain even more misrepresentations and misunderstandings of my view,Click to expand...
with some minor insults likely thrown in for good measure,Click to expand...
Think what you want about me, and I'll return the favor.Click to expand...
Up until this post, you have been kind and cordial. Now, for some reason, you seem a little snippy. I don't understand that. I assumed, by virtue of the fact that you kept commenting, that you were wanting to have a discussion. If you didn't want to have a discussion, then you should have quit four pages ago. I am sorry you responded wrongly to my comments.
Perhaps someone here has been challenged in their thinking and that is good, even it is isn't you. We don't all have to see eye to eye on this to be friends and brothers. Don't read more into it than is there. -
In Isaiah 9:6 it says "6For 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, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
When the Bible says this is it meaning that this is what heaven will call the Messiah. The reason I ask is because I don't think people the New Testament ever called Jesus The Prince of Peace, or am I mistaken on this?
Jer2913
Page 3 of 3