Birth Narratives

[_kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Paidion,

Untimely repsonse here....

The Hebrew word translated as "virgin" could be simply "young woman".

This was the point made by a group of Jews with whom Justin Martyr was discussing. Justin replied something like this:

"If it's a young woman who is prophesied to conceive, that wouldn't be much of a sign from the Lord, would it! Young women are conceiving every day. But if a virgin conceives .... now that's a sign!"

When read in context, the prophecy in Isaiah is dealing with an imminent military threat to the kingdom. Yes, young women are conceiving pretty much every day. The point of the sign was not to establish a miraculous timeline, but rather to indicate that in short order (by the time the child, so imminently conceived, reached a certain stage in its young maturation) the military concern would be over and done with.

The sign hinged upon the interval of time, not upon the remarkability of the conception. Elsewise, the kingdom would have had to have waited several centuries for its fulfillment - and that would have been relatively less comfort to the prophet's putative audience: "Don't worry, because in seven hundred years that military threat won't exist anymore!"

Thank you for the citation from Justin, though,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet, I believe the standard Christian view (if such a thing exists) is that this verse is a double prophecy. So the context of Isaiah can be seen as a "type." In this respect, it was applicable in Isaiah's day as well as the first century A.D. This meaning would not be known to us if it were not for the gospels though, so I realize my Jewish brethren only see the immediate context. I find it curious though that it was translated as "virgin" in the Greek, before Christ's time. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this. I'm going on second hand information.

[Guest]

JC and I posted about the same time without having seen each other's posts. I agree with JC. Here is what I posted:


I agree with Emmet on this one. The initial fulfillment of the prediction of Isiah 7:14 was the birth of Isaiah's son in the following chapter (Isaiah 8). That the "sign" did not necessarily have to involve a miracle is seen in the fact that Isaiah said, "I and the children whom the Lord has given me...are for signs and wonders in Israel" (Isaiah 8:18). Since there was nothing miraculous about the birth of Isaiah or his children, and yet they were regarded as "signs," suggests a meaning of that word that does not require a miraculous fulfillment.

I also believe that "the virgin" (not "a virgin") who was to conceive was not a reference, in the first instance, to a literal woman at all. Both Isaiah's son and Jesus were, of course, born of literal women (the latter also being a literal virgin), but the poetic language of the prophecy, in my opinion, is not speaking about the actual mother of the child. "The virgin" is a reference to Jerusalem ("the virgin, the daughter of Zion"--Isaiah 37:22).*

The prediction is saying, in poetic form, that a child would be born in Jerusalem, which would be Isaiah's own child, according to the following chapter. This is similar to our saying that some famous person is his home town's "favorite son."

How, then, do these predictions apply to Christ, as the New Testament teaches? (Here, Emmett and I would not agree.)

The New Testament writers, under the inspiration given to them by Jesus Himself, "that they might understand the [Old Testament] scriptures" (Luke 24:45), recognized that many Old Testament characters were types of Christ. This may be stated outright (as of Adam, in Romans 5:14), or else implied by the citation of a statement by an Old Testament character (Like David or Isaiah) and attributing the words to Christ.

The most common example of this phenomenon is the citation of various Psalms, in which David appears to be speaking of himself, but where the New Testament writers recognize the words as being those of the Messiah also.

Sometimes two characters in the same story seem to be types of Christ in different ways. For example, David is often a type of Christ, yet his son Solomon also appears to be a type of Christ, the son of David, who would sit in David's place and "build a house" for the Lord's name (2 Sam.7:12ff/ cf. Heb.1:5).

Similarly, Isaiah's words about himself and his children being "signs" are put into the mouth of Jesus in Hebrews 2:13 (suggesting that Isaiah is being seen as a type of Christ). Yet, the quotation of Isaiah 7:14, in Matthew 1:23, suggests that Isaiah's son was also a type of Christ. In this latter case, the virgin mother of Jesus is seen as the antitype of the "virgin daughter of Zion" who was the prophesied "mother" of Isaiah's child.

None of this takes away from the actual virginity of Mary, or of Christ's miraculous conception. These are well enough established by Luke 1:34. Mine is simply a different explanation of how Isaiah 7:14 applies to those facts.

In Jesus,

Steve


* I am aware that the word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is a different Hebrew word [alma] from that in Isaiah 37:22 [betula]. The latter is more frequently viewed as the Hebrew word for an actual virgin, whereas alma is said to mean a "young woman." The difference is not so clear-cut, however, since the translators of the Septuagint translated "alma" as "parthenos"[a virgin] in two of its seven occurences in the Old Testament (including Isaiah 7:14); whereas Wenham has made a strong case that betula, while often meaning "virgin," is more generic for a "young woman." What does all this mean? It suggests that both alma and betula may have meant "a young woman," often including the idea of the woman's virginity. If so, the words were more-or-less interchangeable terms (as much so as, say, our English words "spinster" and "old maid"). This would suggest that the use of different words in the two Isaianic passages represents, not a difference in meaning or identity of the virgin referred to, but only a literary choice of the Author.

[Guest]

I thought this thread had ended. Anyway, in my studies on this topic I read an interesting (and fairly long article) that goes into a typological and (literal or predictive) fullfillment. It's quite interesting. Here's the link (in html):

THE VIRGIN WILL CONCEIVE:
TYPOLOGY IN ISAIAH AND FULFILLMENT IN MATTHEW,
THE USE OF ISAIAH 7:14 IN MATTHEW 1:18–23
by James M. Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.

excerpts, bold mine

"Concentrating mainly on the first text cited, Isaiah 7:14, I will argue that when Matthew speaks of the OT being “fulfilled” he refers to typological rather than predictive fulfillment . . .

Predictive fulfillment would require that when Matthew states that something has been fulfilled, he means that the prophet was speaking specifically of the coming of the Messiah in the distant future . . .

Typological fulfillment is neither allegory nor sensus plenior, and in contrast to predictive fulfillment, it does not necessarily maintain that the prophet is looking into the distant future and prophesying about something outside his own historical context. Rather, typological fulfillment in the life of Jesus refers to the fullest expression of a significant pattern of events. Thus, typological interpretation sees in biblical narratives a divinely intended pattern of events. Events that take place at later points in salvation history correspond to these and intensify their significance."

In order to avoid violating copyright laws I suppose I should make a few comments .

In one of Steve's lectures on Eschatology he critiqued the Dispensational idea of "double-fullfilment" of prophecy concerning Israel; that the Exiles from the Babylonian Captivity returned (as a 1st fulfillment) and "They are returning to Israel today" (as the 2nd fulfillment). Steve went on to say something like, "We may as well have a double-fulfillment of everything if we follow this hermeneutic," pointing out the silliness of it. And, of course, with the Return of the Exiles we have predictive prophecy that had one literal fulfillment.

Many of us who have a "born again Christian" background may have not been educated in hermeneutics, especially when it comes to the fulfillment of prophecy. The concept of "double fulfillment" in Dispensational thought has been disproven to my satisfaction.

But having been taught that there was such a thing as "double-fulfillment" of prophecy (is there?) . . . I tried to "fit it" into Is 7:14 and Matt 1:23. I never could quite seem to get it right. At any rate, I agree with Hamilton (and probably Steve to some extent it seems) that what we have in Matt 1:23 is a typological fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.

Hermeneutics & exegesis: you learn something new every day (try to) . . . .
Rick

[Guest]

Rick, there is a distinction here that I want to address. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. To me, this means any double-prophecies that exist were fulfilled by Christ himself. For this reason I can't take a dispensational view of those prophecies unless I'm willing to say that Jesus was mistaken. Dispensationalists say that Jesus failed to establish his kingdom and must return in the future to do so, and this event will be centered around Israel returning to her historic homeland. My view is that when Jesus said "It is finished" while on the cross, he was talking about all that the prophets had written about. His kingdom was established in the first century and has been growing like a mustard seed ever sense.

I don't want to turn this into a dispensational-bashing thread, but the concept of hermeneutics was brought up. I can believe in double-fullfillment prophecy if they agree with Christ's own words -- that he was the fulfillment of the types and shadows and his kingdom is the Israel of God.

[_kaufmannphillips]

Hello,

I will admit that I am often impatient with typology as an interpretive method. Wresting a passage from its historical/relational context and applying it to circumstances some several centuries removed is perilous, and highly open to eisegesis.

It is important to ask: what, exactly, is typology intended to prove or demonstrate? It cannot be viewed as a foretelling of future events, else it would be simple prophecy and not typology. At most, typology can verify historical/conceptual precedent for phenomena. But, of course, precedent is not substantial proof of the legitimacy of later phenomena.

So typology is of rather limited usefulness, and highly prone to abuse. If one resorts to it as an apologetical tool, one should do so with the greatest of caution and care. And it is preferable to make one's case by more substantial means.

Shalom,
Emmet

P.S.: edited once for grammar....

[Guest]

Again, I agree with Emmet.

Typological fulfillments serve little or no purpose in apologetics (that is, in the effort to convince non-Christians that Christianity is true) for the very reasons that Emmet gives above.

I think the value and purpose of typology is for the Christian to see that what God has done in Christ fits a pattern that God hinted at in earlier historical events. It does not prove anything to a skeptic, but it enriches the believer's sense of consistency in the progressive revelation and providences of God.

[Guest]

In the OT, "Out of Egypt have I called my son" clearly refers to Israel having been delivered from slavery in Egypt.

So what kind of apologetic do we need to accept the NT statement as having been fulfilled when Jesus, as a child, was taken to Egypt, and returned?

[Guest]

The citation of Hosea 11:1 by Matthew is not an apologetic, since the legitimacy of the connection between the Old Testament statement and the childhood of Jesus would not be acknowledged by anyone other than one who is already a Christian.

However, a Christian, who accepts Christ's authorization and illumination of the apostles, can accept the connection as an instance of "type" and "antitype" (that is, Israel is a type of Christ), upon the authority of the apostolic assertion.

[Guest]

JC,

Rick, there is a distinction here that I want to address. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. To me, this means any double-prophecies that exist were fulfilled by Christ himself.

Agreed.

I find it interesting that one text can have the two kinds of fulfillment: Predictive and Typological, imo. So in this sense of meaning I, too, believe in "double-prophecies" . . . (this thread helped me to see that, thanx-JC-and-all).

Steve,

The citation of Hosea 11:1 by Matthew is not an apologetic, since the legitimacy of the connection between the Old Testament statement and the childhood of Jesus would not be acknowledged by anyone other than one who is already a Christian.

I've presented typology in an apologetic sense to unbelievers when they've expressed an interest. (I'm sure you have too). Isaiah 53 is used often in apologetics . . . hmmmmmm . . . .

In Matthew's historical setting I wonder if he might have seen his quoting Is. 7:14 as "an apologetic" in any sense? We know he was trying to persuade his readers who were Jewish, according to tradition. Was/is Matthew doing Inspired-Apologetics, if i may coin the phrase?

Thanx for the exercise in hermeneutics (and apologetics) everyone,
Rick