Double fulfillment

[Notthemama1984]

A theme that comes up frequently in Dispensational circles is the idea of double fulfillment of prophecy. This was the main reason why I started doubting Dispensational/rapture/premil style of interpretation. Recently though I bought Dr. Riddlebarger's book on amillenialism and he also states that there is double fulfillment in prophecy. So.......

can someone please explain this to me and show me where the Bible talks about double fulfillment or an example of a double fulfillment. Everything I have ever seen from the Dispensational side is, "well yes such and such prophecy was fulfilled at such and such time, but because of double fulfillment it will happen again in the future." This just does not rub me right.

Please help.

 

[KMK]

I await more cogent replies, but in the meantime...

The phrase 'double fulfillment' seems to have various meanings depending upon whom you talk to. The Hyper-preterists argue against the orthodox preterist saying that if the destruction of Jerusalem was fulfillment of Matt 24,25 then it must be the final fulfillment.

However, we often see prophecy that is fulfilled more than once and it is called, 'prophetic telescoping'. The Messianic Psalms had fulfillment in their day while also pointing to Christ.

We must also be open to the idea that large epochs of history are fulfillment of prophecy. Eze 36 is a prophecy of the Gospel period which has been in effect for 2000 years. Does that mean that each time a person is regenerated the prophecy of Eze 36 has been fulfilled 'again'?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I don't accept most "double-fulfillment" notions. I believe in foreshadowing or proleptic fulfillments, that may point to the real thing. But they always fall short, somehow or other, of a perfect fulfillment. There is only one absolute, perfect fulfillment that harmonizes all the elements of a prophecy. Otherwise, it's not really prophecy, in my opinion, if you can keep finding "fulfillments." Too generic.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I don't accept most "double-fulfillment" notions. I believe in foreshadowing or proleptic fulfillments, that may point to the real thing. But they always fall short, somehow or other, of a perfect fulfillment. There is only one absolute, perfect fulfillment that harmonizes all the elements of a prophecy. Otherwise, it's not really prophecy, in my opinion, if you can keep finding "fulfillments." Too generic.

If a certain point in history fulfilled each and every detail of the prophecy, then I cannot see why one would think it is going to happen again.

The dangers of double fulfillment are extreme. For example, Louis Farrakhan uses double fulfillment to say that Jesus Christ was the historical fulfillment of the Messiah but just a prelude to the real messiah, and that he (Farrakhan) is the spiritual and true fulfillment of the messiah for mankind (don't believe search youtube it is in a video).

 

[jwithnell]

So much of what's in the prophets deals with the eminent dangers of the Assyrians and Babylonians but also points to the deliverance of God's people through Christ (and the continue warnings for those who rebel). And how many times is the phrase "last days" used? By my count, we're getting up to two or three points of reference here.

 

[Notthemama1984]

example?

 

[Hilasmos]

Well, this isn't "last days," but the "day of the lord" is a common multi meaning term. Just in the book of Joel it refers to a lot of things:

Current invasion by locusts (1:15) vs. final vindication of God (3:18-21).

Threat of destruction concerning Israel (2:1, 11) vs. threat for the nations (3:14)

Also, concerning the thread generally, Is. 7:14 could be an example of "double fulfillment prophecy."

 

[Notthemama1984]

How is Is. 7:14 a double fulfillment?

When was there two virgins who conceived?

 

[Hilasmos]

How is Is. 7:14 a double fulfillment?

When was there two virgins who conceived?

This is based on rendering the term "virgin" as "young woman." This then was fulfilled, at least partially, in the person of Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:1,3) born in the time of Ahaz.

To argue against this, and for a single fulfillment, one could agree that the term refers to "young woman," but that in so doing this it really means "maiden." A maiden would be a young woman, but one who is unmarried and therefore "sexually chaste."

 

[Notthemama1984]

Or I can just argue that Isaiah 7 says that he shall be called Immanuel and chapter eight the child's name is Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.

 

[Hilasmos]

Well, then one could argue that Matthew 1:21 says the child's name is Jesus, but v.23 says the son's name is immanuel.

 

[Notthemama1984]

ok, but the Isaiah quote from Matthew uses the word virgin. If a young woman was intended the Greek would have used korasion vs parthenos. So using the NT to interpret the OT, we see that virgin should be used in Isaiah and thus 8:3 is not a fulfillment of 7:14

 

[Hilasmos]

Or, it has a double fulfillment.

-----Added 11/30/2008 at 07:53:29 EST-----

8:18 references the children of Isaiah as the sign child...so, regardless, it seems difficult to get away from some form of historical fulfillment in Ahaz's time.

 

[Notthemama1984]

If Matthew clarifies the translation of the OT, then translating Isaiah any other way is unwarranted.

I can't see why you would want to hold to both translations.

 

[Hilasmos]

See what I added to my other post concerning 8:18. I agree that Matthew's translation is a strong argument for how the term should be understood beyond the other reasons; but, I don't see how it can be ripped from the context of Isaiah 7-8.

 

[Notthemama1984]

22. Now all this was done It is ignorant and childish trifling to argue, that the name Jesus is given to the Son of God, because he is called Immanuel For Matthew does not confine this assertion to the single fact of the name, but includes whatever is heavenly and divine in the conception of Christ; and that is the reason why he employs the general term all We must now see how appropriately the prediction of Isaiah is applied. It is a well-known and remarkable passage, ( Isaiah 7:14 ,) but perverted by the Jews with their accustomed malice; though the hatred of Christ and of truth, which they thus discover, is as blind and foolish as it is wicked. To such a pitch of impudence have many of their Rabbins proceeded, as to explain it in reference to King Hezekiah, who was then about fifteen years of age. And what, I ask, must be their rage for lying, when, in order to prevent the admission of clear light, they invert the order of nature, and shut up a youth in his mother’s womb, that he may be born sixteen years old? But the enemies of Christ deserve that God should strike them with a spirit of giddiness and insensibility, should
“pour out upon them a spirit of deep sleep and close their eyes,”
( Isaiah 29:10 .)


Others apply it to a creature of their own fancy, some unknown son of Ahaz, whose birth Isaiah predicted. But with what propriety was he called Immanuel, or the land subjected to his sway, who closed his life in a private station and without honor? for shortly afterwards the prophet tells us that this child, whoever he was, would be ruler of the land. Equally absurd is the notion that this passage relates to the prophet’s son. On this subject we may remark, that Christian writers have very strangely misapprehended the prediction contained in the next chapter, by applying it to Christ. The prophet there says, that, instructed by a vision, he “went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son,” and that the child whom she bore was named by Divine command, ”Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” “Making speed to the spoil, hasten the prey,” ( Isaiah 8:3 .) All that is there described is approaching war, accompanied by fearful desolation; which makes it very manifest that the subjects are totally different.
John Calvin. Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1 (78).

 

[Manuel]

I also would like to see some concrete examples of double fulfillment, since I hear about this all the time and I even assume that this is an actual biblical principle but I had never stopped to think about it, whether it's true or not.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I have been looking online for double fulfillment and am only seeing Isaiah 7:14 as the only possible double fulfillment, but Calvin calls it a "frivolous conjecture" to think that the verse refers to the Messiah and to Isaiah's son.

 

[Hilasmos]

Craig Blomberg discusses at least 10 double fulfillments from Isaiah to Matthew:

Craig Blomberg: Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy in Matthew

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I reject the idea of double-fulfillment in Is.7:14.
Read the chapter from the first verse.
Here's an explanation I've given here in the past.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f43/who-immanuel-18829/#post235107

 

[Hilasmos]

I reject the idea of double-fulfillment in Is.7:14.
Read the chapter from the first verse.
Here's an explanation I've given here in the past.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f43/who-immanuel-18829/#post235107

What sort of astonishing sign is it to say "the girl shall get pregnant--naturally--and bear a son"? Its no great sign at all, since it happens all the time.

The sign was, historically, not so much the pregnancy. Rather, the birth of the son initiating the sign indicating the soon fall of the two enemy kings (1 or 2 years, as you state?).

Isaiah 7:14-16: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

“He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.

“For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

I have trouble disjointing the "He" and the "Boy" from the "Son" of v.14, as it seems to flow in describing what and who the boy will be. The sign I take to be that if the "two kings" are sacked by Assyria before the boy eats curds it would coincide with the word of God from Isaiah.

The child signified that "God is with us" through, at least at the time, sparing Judah. His name indicating the destruction of the enemy kings. Yet, it points to the ultimate sign, as spoken of by Matthew, when God will really be with us in a complete and saving way.

Isaiah goes on to exhort them to heed the law and not look to "mediums and psychics" for guidance. The two names of Isaiah's sons would remain signs for them 8:18. Even when people are judged by a nation that is "Maher-shalal-hash-baz" (swift to plunder and quick to spoil) there will always be a Shear-jashub ("a remnant will return" cf. Is. 10:20-23).

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 01:14:05 EST-----

Contra-Mundum:
There's really no other reason for God to command Isaiah to take the boy along with him and meet Ahaz. God knows what Ahaz is going to say, and little Shear-jashub has an illustrative part to play in the coming prophecy.

My problem with 7:15-16 refering to shear-jashub is what it says in 8:4 in reference to Maher-shalal-hash-baz:

"For before the boy knows how to cry out "My father" or "My mother," the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried way before the king of Assyria."

The ability to cry out father or mother is parallel with the ability to "refuse evil and choose good," (7:16). It is Maher-shalal-hash-baz that serves as the sign of the Northern kingdom's demise. Or, it is Maher-shalal-hash-baz that won't be able to refuse good or evil before Assyria attacks the North, not Shear-jashub.

That being the case, to argue that the "conceiving and giving birth to a son" in 8:3 is a different son than in the "young woman who will be with child" of 7:14 doesn't make sense to me. Especially when 7:15-16 continues the flow of 7:14 talking about the same child, and that same child is Maher-Shalal-hash-baz based on 8:4.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Craig Blomberg discusses at least 10 double fulfillments from Isaiah to Matthew:

Craig Blomberg: Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy in Matthew

thanks I will look into these later today.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I reject the idea of double-fulfillment in Is.7:14.
Read the chapter from the first verse.
Here's an explanation I've given here in the past.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f43/who-immanuel-18829/#post235107

What sort of astonishing sign is it to say "the girl shall get pregnant--naturally--and bear a son"? Its no great sign at all, since it happens all the time.

The sign was, historically, not so much the pregnancy. Rather, the birth of the son initiating the sign indicating the soon fall of the two enemy kings (1 or 2 years, as you state?).

I couldn't disagree more. Matthew 1:23 tells us that the sign was the virgin-conception-birth. I fail to see how it could be any clearer. Although Isaiah is pretty clear himself: "Jehovah himself shall give you a sign: the virgin shall conceive and bear a son..."

It seems to me you have already decided that the "historic" meaning or fulfillment is something other than the Messiah. That colors your interpretation, just as much as my pre-conception colors mine: that it does refer to Messiah in its historic context, and all attempts to understand the verses have to begin with that understanding, or they are going to be filled with errors and falsehood.

I have trouble disjointing the "He" and the "Boy" from the "Son" of v.14, as it seems to flow in describing what and who the boy will be. The sign I take to be that if the "two kings" are sacked by Assyria before the boy eats curds it would coincide with the word of God from Isaiah.

The child signified that "God is with us" through, at least at the time, sparing Judah. His name indicating the destruction of the enemy kings. Yet, it points to the ultimate sign, as spoken of by Matthew, when God will really be with us in a complete and saving way.

1) Since I can happily connect vv14-15, I don't have to drive any wedges between the "he" and the "Son" in those verses.

2) The question is: is the "child" of v16 the same as the "Son" of v14? In v14, the denomination is "ben"; in v16 "na'ar". This difference in terminology widens the possibility that we need to determine which "ben" or other reference in the passage is meant.

3) What is the significance of the definite article in front of "child/boy" v16? Again, it broadens the interpretive possibilities. Isaiah is standing there with his child. God commanded that he stand there with his son (v3). Why shouldn't he mean "THE" child right here? It isn't objectionable to the sense, it explains why God commanded the son to be brought along, and it explains why there should be a new Noun there at all, since it would be normal grammatically to simply proceed with the simple verbs and their associated gender.

4) Are there connections/parallels between vv15-16? Yes, but what is the nature of those parallels? Is there repetition in the language "refuse evil and choose good" for the purpose of showing a transition between "a Son" of vv14-15, and "the/this boy" of v16?

Isaiah goes on to exhort them to heed the law and not look to "mediums and psychics" for guidance. The two names of Isaiah's sons would remain signs for them 8:18. Even when people are judged by a nation that is "Maher-shalal-hash-baz" (swift to plunder and quick to spoil) there will always be a Shear-jashub ("a remnant will return" cf. Is. 10:20-23).

1) Beside the name of the son given in v3, where is the name of son #1 referenced relative to the conversation with Ahaz? It isn't, and there is no indication that in this context it has more than a general-reference reminder that God's chief interest is with his covenant promises.

2) It seems like a big temptation to run to the next pericope, as if the answers to the current pericope's puzzles have to be found in the next passage. But this is assuming what needs to be proved, namely that the current pericope contains insufficient data to make it coherent. Since it manifestly does, and that without contradictions, why must we run on to the next passage? If 7:14 is referring to the virgin birth, then 8:3 has exactly ZERO to do with interpreting the previous woman and birth.

Contra-Mundum:
There's really no other reason for God to command Isaiah to take the boy along with him and meet Ahaz. God knows what Ahaz is going to say, and little Shear-jashub has an illustrative part to play in the coming prophecy.

My problem with 7:15-16 refering to shear-jashub is what it says in 8:4 in reference to Maher-shalal-hash-baz:

"For before the boy knows how to cry out "My father" or "My mother," the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried way before the king of Assyria."

The ability to cry out father or mother is parallel with the ability to "refuse evil and choose good," (7:16). It is Maher-shalal-hash-baz that serves as the sign of the Northern kingdom's demise. Or, it is Maher-shalal-hash-baz that won't be able to refuse good or evil before Assyria attacks the North, not Shear-jashub.

That being the case, to argue that the "conceiving and giving birth to a son" in 8:3 is a different son than in the "young woman who will be with child" of 7:14 doesn't make sense to me. Especially when 7:15-16 continues the flow of 7:14 talking about the same child, and that same child is Maher-Shalal-hash-baz based on 8:4.

With all due respect, you are reading into these parallels in language necessities that simply do not follow. Because 8:4 contains the words "before he knows..." as we read in 7:15-16, that shows this later referenced child is the same son promised? Or because both passages speak of Israel's and Syria's downfall? The connection would have been a little stronger (although by no means necessitated) if the full statements had been paralleled.

But they aren't. And that is a major disjunct, never mind that this is a separate, stand alone pericope.

They are referring to the same downfall, but just because Maher. is a sign also, doesn't make the virgin-birth prophecy a reference to his birth. You can "export" Maher. back into the previous pericope if you desire, but that is a clear interpretive CHOICE that then forces you to justify other exegetical irregularities.

For one thing, this involves the dubious choice of reading "maiden" in 7:14 as something very different than its consistent meaning all through the Old Testament. Not only would this woman NOT be a maiden when Isaiah has this child by her, she's a MATRON with a previous child!

Second, why shouldn't we expect Isaiah to use similar language when referencing any child at all upon any circumstances at all, if some child is expected to be a harbinger of some kind before he's weaned, or such a time has passed?

Furthermore, especially if in fact this child of ISAIAH's is conceived, born, and named at the direction of God to reinforce the prophecy of ch7? (reinforce, not interpret)


None of the suggestions that Is.7:14 originally meant something other than the virgin-conception-birth makes sense to me, when the Bible flat tells us that this was a Messianic prediction. Furthermore, I would argue that Micah5:3 (among other OT passages) reinforces the idea of an extraordinary birth, very telling since both men were prophesying at the same time (during Jotham's, Ahaz', and Hezekiah's reigns).

 

[KMK]

Are those who do not believe in double fulfillment then preterists by necessity? (Matt 24,25)

 

[Hilasmos]

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum
I couldn't disagree more. Matthew 1:23 tells us that the sign was the virgin-conception-birth. I fail to see how it could be any clearer. Although Isaiah is pretty clear himself: "Jehovah himself shall give you a sign: the virgin shall conceive and bear a son..."

First, this is assuming that Matthew meant it, the miraculous virgin birth, was the sign for Ahaz, why is that? Is Matthew speaking about his own time or Ahazs? Secondly, this is assuming that the "sign" given to Ahaz must end in v.14, why doesn't the content of the sign extend through v.16? Here is the elements to the sign:

1. Young woman will conceive a child
2. He will be of the age of eating curds and honey when he develops the capacity to refuse evil and choose good.
3. Finally, before the boy is that age (2.) the two kings that you dread will be killed.

I find no reason to say that the "sign" is limited in this context specifically to a miraculous virgin birth in 700 years (v.14), when the word allows, and the context demands (so it seems to me), that the sign = the elements of 1. 2. 3. added together. The sign that "God is with us" will be the fact that the two kings will be killed before this son is reaches the age in point 2..

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum
1) Since I can happily connect vv14-15, I don't have to drive any wedges between the "he" and the "Son" in those verses.

I think this is an interesting point of agreement. The Son of v.14 is also the "He" of v.15. So now the question is, is the "He" of v.15 the "boy" of v.16.

What is true of the "He" v.15 "He will eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good"

What is true of the "Boy" v.16: "For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted."

How these can be separated is beyond me. I understand your point about the change to "boy," but the context would seem to override that as both verses are alluding to a "child" and its relation to the natural development to an age of knowing good and evil.

I also think the word "For" is an important element. What does the conjunction join? Is it indicating a "reason?" You shall call his name immanuel... FOR before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted? What seems to be such an imminent threat right now will be destroyed in just a couple years in accordance with the birth and growth of a child.

Whats the For "for" if it isn't connected in some way to v.14-15?

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum
2) It seems like a big temptation to run to the next pericope, as if the answers to the current pericope's puzzles have to be found in the next passage. But this is assuming what needs to be proved, namely that the current pericope contains insufficient data to make it coherent. Since it manifestly does, and that without contradictions, why must we run on to the next passage? If 7:14 is referring to the virgin birth, then 8:3 has exactly ZERO to do with interpreting the previous woman and birth.

I don't follow this since in both views what is given in chapter 7 is a prophecy of what will take place. So whether we jump to chapter 8 or Matthew 1 we are both going forward. I never said the data in ch. 7 is incoherent. What is said is what is said. A son will be born, and before he reaches a certain age the enemy kings will fall. The fact that Ch. 8 spreads light on the actual name of the child in the immediate fulfillment of the text only adds more information, it isn't necessary. Again, stating that this means "Virgin birth" absolutely, in this context, is importing Matthew into it...for one who wants to remain in this context. Scholars seem to agree that it means young woman, without saying, necessarily, that she would be a virgin (although that is likely). Hence, it is able to have a "dual" fulfillment, in Isaiah and in a greater more miraculous sense in Matthew.

They are referring to the same downfall, but just because Ma her. is a sign also, doesn't make the virgin-birth prophecy a reference to his birth. You can "export" Maher. back into the previous pericope if you desire, but that is a clear interpretive CHOICE that then forces you to justify other exegetical irregularities.

If both 8:4 and 7:16 are referring to the same downfall, we have a problem. You're assuming that the Northern Kingdom was destroyed before both Shaer (who was already living) and Maher., who wasn't even conceived yet, came to the age of refusing good and evil?

According to 8:18 both are signs, but it isn't before the "boys" reach this age, it is before "the boy," the single one, the one named in chapter 8, as is evident by 8:4. Shaer., as you don't think is good interpretation, serves as a sign by representing, through his name, that a remnant will return.

You have to insist that v.16 refers to Shaer. alone, rather than Maher., and I don't think thats justifiable. Once you consent that v.16 refers to Maher., than the double fulfillment is unavoidable. For then we have Isaiah saying, "Before the boy..." wait, what boy? The boy is Maher, but he hasn't been born yet, so how can Isaiah speak about this boy when he hasn't made it evident who this boy is? Well, thats because he did make it evident, the boy that will be born of a "young woman," v.14.

A conclusion, in part:

1) Since "boy" is singular in v.18, it can't refer to both Shaer. and Maher. (on top of a conjectured issue with Shaer reaching the age to fast).

2) 8:4 associates, explicitly, the boy Maher as being the one who will not reach a certain age before the destruction of the North.

3) Therefore, the "boy" of 7:16 is Maher.

1a) Since the boy of 7:16 is Maher., he has not yet been born or would be unknown to the king.

2b) This leaves the question "what boy," and the answer can't be Shaer (based on 1-3).

3c) The answer, as it seems obvious, is the "child" already in discussion 7:14.

4d) This is confirmed by the fact that the sign itself IS the child of 7:14, and this sign will be given to "you" (Ahaz). And, the only sign given to Ahaz was the child Maher. and Shaer.

In what way is a virgin birth a sign to Ahaz when it won't happen for 700 years? Approaching the time of Christ, was the miraculous virgin birth a sign before or after it happened? Miracles in action serve as signs.

 

[Wannabee]

The hermeneutic of single meaning would necessitate single fulfillment, unless I miss something. This is a common element of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, though there is much contention over whether it is, indeed, a viable hermeneutic. There is also the already/not yet aspect of prophecy that can often cause us to struggle. An excellent example is Luke 4:18-19, which is a partial quote of Isaiah's prophecy. It reveals that the prhphecy has been fulfilled, in so far as Jesus has quoted it. But the day of vengeance is still yet to come, showing us that we must be careful in handling prophecy and concluding that there is absolute fulfillment when the prophecy, in whole, may not yet be fulfilled. It's also a good argument against those who claim that you must quote the whole verse, or none of it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hilasmos,
Response, Pt.1

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum
I couldn't disagree more. Matthew 1:23 tells us that the sign was the virgin-conception-birth. I fail to see how it could be any clearer. Although Isaiah is pretty clear himself: "Jehovah himself shall give you a sign: the virgin shall conceive and bear a son..."

First, this is assuming that Matthew meant it, the miraculous virgin birth, was the sign for Ahaz, why is that? Is Matthew speaking about his own time or Ahazs? Secondly, this is assuming that the "sign" given to Ahaz must end in v.14, why doesn't the content of the sign extend through v.16? Here is the elements to the sign:

1. Young woman will conceive a child
2. He will be of the age of eating curds and honey when he develops the capacity to refuse evil and choose good.
3. Finally, before the boy is that age (2.) the two kings that you dread will be killed.

I find no reason to say that the "sign" is limited in this context specifically to a miraculous virgin birth in 700 years (v.14), when the word allows, and the context demands (so it seems to me), that the sign = the elements of 1. 2. 3. added together. The sign that "God is with us" will be the fact that the two kings will be killed before this son is reaches the age in point 2..

I am "assuming" that Matthew meant exactly the same thing as Isaiah meant. Or, conversely, that Isaiah meant exactly what Matthew meant, if anyone insists that Isaiah's written record of what he meant is somehow obscure; Matthew clears away any cobwebs.

"Assumption" (it seems to me) is "loaded" language, as if it were controversial to say that light shed on the OT by the NT was largely secondary. Jesus said that HE was the subject of all the Scriptures. Matthew (and the other writers of the NT) frequently point to passages that prove that point, not by a "faint allusion" but clearly and pointedly.

This is one of the first references to the OT in the NT! It is a "tone setter" for the Matthew's gospel. How is he supposed to establish credibility if his appeals to the OT are the least bit questionable, especially in the first few verses?

Furthermore, I understand Isaiah to be issuing his rebuke to Ahaz on the basis of a Christological point: Ahaz is rebelling against Jehovah because he does not believe the God of Promise is reliable. AND Ahaz does not realize that God is interested in the Covenant Nation because he is (big picture) saving his people from a catastrophe that makes wars and rumors of wars look piddling in comparison--namely sin and death.

So, given that Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign that God will deliver this little city at this time, why is it astonishing that Isaiah should retort that God would provide a sign such as Ahaz wouldn't have even thought to ask! Off the charts! A virgin birth! Now that's a sign that God intends to destroy sin and death--problems much more serious than a measly little army that outnumbers Ahaz' tribe.

And if that, then he'll also throw in a lesser sign too, a lesser deliverance: a promise to replace the menace of Syria and the Ten Tribes real soon... with the terror of Assyria.

Take that, Ahaz.

It's all about Christ.
____________________________

When you use the language "young woman" (will conceive), you are not being accurate or fair to the text. The LXX and NT gloss "virgin" conveys the sense of the OT reading. If you prefer, you might have chosen "maiden" which conveys both the general breadth and narrowness of the term: i.e. "young, chaste woman of marriagable age."

This term is never used in the OT for a married woman, never used for anyone not presupposed to be a virgin. IN CONTRAST, the word for "virgin" (betulah) IS sometimes used for a woman who is already married! So, if you were Isaiah, and you wanted to express a "virgin" conception and birth, you had two words to choose from, which would you choose? Flip a coin?

So, your list of what the elements are starts off with an attempt to be neutral, but really strips away a vital part of accuracy.

Second in your list of elements, you are interpreting the phrase, "curds and honey he shall eat, THAT (NKJV) he may know..." etc. [some "WHEN" etc., its an infinitive, lamed-verb]. If this is talking about Messiah, sinless, then your interpretation of "develops the capacity" to tell right from wrong is somewhat prejudicial, even if we allow that Jesus did "develop" certain cognitive capacities. All it says is the child will

a) eat curds and honey (what does this mean, and why, are more interpretive questions);
and b) THAT/WHEN he will be eating such he will have knowledge of right and wrong.

--And if the Messiah, he would perfectly do this, unlike the average kid.

And thirdly, SOME boy, THE/THIS child will soon be 2-5 yrs, weaned, and Ahaz' present foes will both be terminated.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum
1) Since I can happily connect vv14-15, I don't have to drive any wedges between the "he" and the "Son" in those verses.

I think this is an interesting point of agreement. The Son of v.14 is also the "He" of v.15. So now the question is, is the "He" of v.15 the "boy" of v.16.

What is true of the "He" v.15 "He will eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good"

What is true of the "Boy" v.16: "For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted."

How these can be separated is beyond me. I understand your point about the change to "boy," but the context would seem to override that as both verses are alluding to a "child" and its relation to the natural development to an age of knowing good and evil.

I also think the word "For" is an important element. What does the conjunction join? Is it indicating a "reason?" You shall call his name immanuel... FOR before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted? What seems to be such an imminent threat right now will be destroyed in just a couple years in accordance with the birth and growth of a child.

Whats the For "for" if it isn't connected in some way to v.14-15?

You'll please note that unlike some others' interpretation, I actually find for a specific answer to that present state of affairs in the text itself. I don't answer the whole question 700 years future to that date. I think some have, which would only serve Ahaz right, since he didn't believe God anyway. What good would a sign do to an unbeliever anyway?

But I think they also fail to answer the question: "why bring the little boy along; what part does he have to play in this drama; how does God plan to use him in this scene?" The basic "2-5 years" point could still be predicated on Messiah, but without reference to the "prop" he's carrying around, it's a little less "visual", I'd say.
__________________________

How can they be separated? You have the insertion of an otherwise unnecessary noun, that's one reason. If the new noun refers to the child he's carrying (prophetic prop), then he's just made a linguistic parallel between the Soteriological promise, and the promise of the less important and less significant immediate, temporal deliverance. By using the same language, he makes a redemptive-historical connection between the greater salvation, and the lesser. The lesser is necessary for the accomplishment of the greater.

But suppose it was made evident that verse 16 HAD to be talking about the same person as in vv14-15? Suppose "kiy" (for) establishes something more than a simple causal connection between the verses? Then I'm back to Messiah, and I still haven't seen any reason to separate 7:14 from being purely Messianic, aside from some presumed necessity to give an ungodly king a sign he doesn't believe, concerning a deliverance he doesn't want, that some later writer glommed onto and "recast" as a virgin-birth prophecy.

I can't do that. And, I've already shown that there IS a causal connection between vv15-16 anyway, because the earlier, lesser deliverance is causally related to the greater, Christological deliverance.

 

[Spinningplates2]

Hilasmos,
Response, Pt.1

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum
Take that, Ahaz.

I really enjoyed reading the whole post but when I got to the "Take that, Ahaz" part, I laughed out loud. I read it again and then said it out loud, "Yeah! Take that Ahaz." I really love the whole Nativity story and all aspects of the incarnation. Now I have one more reason to smile when I think of the Lord's birth. God Bless you for this post.

 

[Hilasmos]

So, if you were Isaiah, and you wanted to express a "virgin" conception and birth, you had two words to choose from, which would you choose? Flip a coin?

I am not implying that Isaiah, or God that is, didn't want to allow for "Virgin," since I still believe that Christ is the fulfillment. I just allow that it could also fit within the present context. I am not a Hebrew Scholar so all I can do is appeal to Ceasar.

†עַלְמָה S5959 TWOT1630b GK6625 n.f. young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married);—ע׳ Gn 24:43 (J), Ex 2:8 (E), Pr 30:19 Is 7:14; pl. עֲלָמוֹת ψ 68:26 Ct 1:3; 6:8; עַל־עֲלָמוֹת to (the voice of) young women, either lit., or of soprano or falsetto of boys: 1 Ch 15:20 ψ 9:1 (read עַל־עֲלָמוֹת לַבֵּן [for עַל־מוּת לַבֵּן, ‘voce virgines a pueris decantandum,’ Thes), 46:1; 48:15 (read עַל־עֲלָמוֹת [for עַל־מוּת]; tr. prob. to 49:1).

Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domans

6625 עַלְמָה (ʿǎl∙mā(h)): n.fem.; ≡ Str 5959; TWOT 1630b—LN 9.34-9.40 young woman, i.e., sexually mature female of marriageable age, which may or may not be sexually active (Ge 24:43; Ex 2:8; Ps 68:26[EB 25]; Pr 30:19; SS 1:3; 6:8; Isa 7:14+), note: context will demand or suggest if the young woman is sexually active, note: for
another interp in 1Ch 15:20; Ps 46:1[EB title], see 6628;

Brown-Driver-Briggs

But I think they also fail to answer the question: "why bring the little boy along; what part does he have to play in this drama; how does God plan to use him in this scene?" The basic "2-5 years" point could still be predicated on Messiah, but without reference to the "prop" he's carrying around, it's a little less "visual", I'd say.

This view, like I said, puts Isaiah at odds with himself when he expands on who "The Boy" is that the fall of the Northern enemies will be in accordance with (8:3-4). If it is Maher., then 7:16 is makes no sense unless connected with 14-15.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Response #2

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum2) It seems like a big temptation to run to the next pericope, as if the answers to the current pericope's puzzles have to be found in the next passage. But this is assuming what needs to be proved, namely that the current pericope contains insufficient data to make it coherent. Since it manifestly does, and that without contradictions, why must we run on to the next passage? If 7:14 is referring to the virgin birth, then 8:3 has exactly ZERO to do with interpreting the previous woman and birth.

I don't follow this since in both views what is given in chapter 7 is a prophecy of what will take place. So whether we jump to chapter 8 or Matthew 1 we are both going forward. I never said the data in ch. 7 is incoherent. What is said is what is said. A son will be born, and before he reaches a certain age the enemy kings will fall. The fact that Ch. 8 spreads light on the actual name of the child in the immediate fulfillment of the text only adds more information, it isn't necessary. Again, stating that this means "Virgin birth" absolutely, in this context, is importing Matthew into it...for one who wants to remain in this context. Scholars seem to agree that it means young woman, without saying, necessarily, that she would be a virgin (although that is likely). Hence, it is able to have a "dual" fulfillment, in Isaiah and in a greater more miraculous sense in Matthew.

I'm not "importing" Matthew into it; I'm accepting the idea that Matthew is "reporting" the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. So, if there's any question about what Isaiah meant, Matthew can clarify that.

However, I reject the idea that Isaiah is NOT prophesying the virgin birth, exclusively. If I'd been alive in those days, could I have made a mistake in interpretation? Maybe, maybe not. I guess that would depend on whether I was listening to Isaiah interpret his own prophecy. I can't help the knowledge that I have, and pretending I can read Isaiah as if I didn't have Matthew is foolishness.

My default position is that Isaiah himself preached the virgin birth, and so did his pal Micah. That it was as obvious to Isaiah that this Word spoke of the virgin-birth as it was to Matthew later on. Matthew didn't need a special Holy Ghost interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. He could have been humanly reliant on 700 years of rabbinic Messianic expectation/interpretation on this text.

If a modern scholar knows "better" than Matthew what Isaiah meant, then he also knows better than Holy Spirit. Must be great being that smart. Too smart for me. Nope, I see no compelling reason to accept that "almah" carries any other connotation than "virgin/maiden", and that at least two centuries before Jesus' ministry, that's what the Jews thought too (LXX).

They are referring to the same downfall, but just because Maher. is a sign also, doesn't make the virgin-birth prophecy a reference to his birth. You can "export" Maher. back into the previous pericope if you desire, but that is a clear interpretive CHOICE that then forces you to justify other exegetical irregularities.

If both 8:4 and 7:16 are referring to the same downfall, we have a problem. You're assuming that the Northern Kingdom was destroyed before both Shaer (who was already living) and Maher., who wasn't even conceived yet, came to the age of refusing good and evil?

You've misunderstood my intent. I apologize.

I meant that the circumstances that created the prophecy of ch7 are essentially the same circumstances as ch8. Insofar as they have reference to Ahaz' situation, they refer to the same thing. And I have said that 7:16-17ff (but not vv14-15) refers to Ahaz particularly, and Isaiah's son Shaer. (who I think is probably a young enough infant to be carried) serves as the point of illustration for how soon the prophecy of Israel's destruction will happen.

To further clarify the time frame: Israel (northern kingdom) is in process of disintegration. Ahaz is worried (as early as 735BC when he starts to regent) about them as an enemy power, allied to Syria (Damascus), but he is playing with fire making alliance with Assyria. Extrabiblical records has him bringing gifts to Assyria around 734BC. (For dates, I generally rely on Theile's data).

I am not assuming that all this happened at once, in one fell swoop. For one thing, Israel disappeared into the maw of Assyria in chunks. So, which "bite" does this refer to? By 731BC Pekah (of Israel) has been defeated by Assyria and assassinated. Hoshea (of Israel) was a total vassal of Assyria for the next nine years, attempted an alliance with Egypt to break with Assyria, and was taken off and imprisoned, and the people of the northern tribes scattered forever (2Ki.17).

In the absence of other data, I presently hold the opinion that Is.8 still takes place while Pekah is still reigning. It is occurs after the ch7 episode, which I take to be about 734BC, which leaves Pekah with 2-3 years remaining before he is despoiled and then killed in conspiracy. After he is destroyed, Israel presents no more direct military threat to Judah.

So, I think both Isaiah's sons were born not too far apart from each other, and the general thrust of both of these chapters is speaking of Israel's general demise under Pekah's leadership. The head was cut off. That Israel thrashed around for another nine yrs (under Hoshea) just waiting for the denouement is temporally trivial. It was a ten year, slow-motion collapse into ruin. The script was begun in 732/1BC, and the curtain came down in 723BC.

According to 8:18 both are signs, but it isn't before the "boys" reach this age, it is before "the boy," the single one, the one named in chapter 8, as is evident by 8:4. Shaer., as you don't think is good interpretation, serves as a sign by representing, through his name, that a remnant will return.

I never thought that Shaer.'s name was especially relevant for the sign to Ahaz. "Remnant" is a theme running throughout the book, starting in 1:9. So, Isaiah's naming his son "Remnant" might not have even been an act of obedience to special revelation, although it could have been. We're not told. The name is part of a thick seam running through the whole book, a persistent reminder.

Isaiah had a son. That son had a name, Shaer., given to him for reasons other than going to see Ahaz one day. Isaiah was told in ch7:3 to take his son with him when he went to see Ahaz. I believe it was because he was a prophetic "prop" (no disrespect intended), a "visual aid" God meant to use. Isaiah makes no reference to Judah's future exile at that time, nor do I think it has direct relevance to Ahaz' situation.

You have to insist that v.16 refers to Shaer. alone, rather than Maher., and I don't think thats justifiable. Once you consent that v.16 refers to Maher., than the double fulfillment is unavoidable. For then we have Isaiah saying, "Before the boy..." wait, what boy? The boy is Maher, but he hasn't been born yet, so how can Isaiah speak about this boy when he hasn't made it evident who this boy is? Well, thats because he did make it evident, the boy that will be born of a "young woman," v.14.

You're absolutely right about who I think 7:16 refers to. I've explained my justification, and it's not really been challenged that hard, SFAIK. It's Shaer. in my opinion, being held there in Isaiah's arms, I expect.

I don't agree that 7:16 refers to Maher, or I suppose I would have to consent to a "double fulfillment". But I think it's "the boy" that he's standing there in front of Ahaz holding tight, namely Shaer, whose purpose is an object lesson to Ahaz, "This kid will be barely able to talk, when the kings you fear today are gone, pffft."

Again, your interpretation is grounded upon the view that "almah" is somehow open to the kind of vague general-interpretation that means the same thing for, say, an 13 yr old daughter still at home, and an 18 yr old married woman with at least one live child on the teat. Show me one example of that word being used for someone NOT assumed to be unmarried and chaste.

A conclusion, in part:

1) Since "boy" is singular in v.18, it can't refer to both Shaer. and Maher. (on top of a conjectured issue with Shaer reaching the age to fast).

2) 8:4 associates, explicitly, the boy Maher as being the one who will not reach a certain age before the destruction of the North.

3) Therefore, the "boy" of 7:16 is Maher.

1a) Since the boy of 7:16 is Maher., he has not yet been born or would be unknown to the king.

2b) This leaves the question "what boy," and the answer can't be Shaer (based on 1-3).

3c) The answer, as it seems obvious, is the "child" already in discussion 7:14.

4d) This is confirmed by the fact that the sign itself IS the child of 7:14, and this sign will be given to "you" (Ahaz). And, the only sign given to Ahaz was the child Maher. and Shaer.

In what way is a virgin birth a sign to Ahaz when it won't happen for 700 years? Approaching the time of Christ, was the miraculous virgin birth a sign before or after it happened? Miracles in action serve as signs.

You say you can interpret ch7 without reference to ch8, that its NOT incoherent without ch8. But this whole series of conclusions works backwards from ch8:18!?! Tell me what ch7 means without reference to ch8.

Or do you mean for me to conclude that ch7 is really too mysterious, until ch8 sheds more light?

I appreciate you laying it all out for me, but we're just not on the same sheet of music, and the presuppositions we are bringing to the text are just too different. I don't agree with many of your "obvious" points. And you don't see mine. OK.

The supra-sign, the Soteriological sign is this whole thing: [virgin/maiden--conception--son--who]. This is a sign that goes beyond Ahaz' present worries. That godless man won't even ask for a sign that will help him to believe in a temporal salvation. No, he'd rather trust Assyria.

The sub-sign is son-in-Isaiah's-arms. And it is this sign that is reinforced in the following chapter. And if it seems like a "sign" that isn't really "seen" until it has basically come to fulfillment, so what good is it... well, that's nothing new:

But Moses said to God, "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the children of Israel out of Egypt?"
He said, "But I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you, that I have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain."

Ex.3:11-12

What is the "sign" that to Moses that God has sent him to accomplish this task? That he makes it back to this Mount Sinai with the armies of the tribes of Israel. But... But... But... (and yes, Moses whines, for about another chapter).


Lastly, the sign of the virgin-birth is a good sign to Ahaz, and to the whole church--it's as good a sign as every other prophetic promise. God says, "I'm going to save you from sin and death by my Messiah, here's another stupendous manifestation I'm planning. So, you can trust me to save you from this little sideshow."

Every one of God's promises is a "sign", a reason to believe. Now, neither one of these promises--the greater or the lesser-- had any effect on Ahaz. They didn't answer his "current needs" very well, but then nothing was going to anyway. That king was a faithless, godless man.

In his capacity as king of the chosen nation, he received a sign for all the believers. They heard this reminder of the saving plan of God, and they DID believe that God would save them from this trivial peril--thousands of troops marching against them). The one who believed the sign stopped worrying (and probably quit trusting in Ahaz too), knowing that in a couple years the present threat would be gone.

And God must have a plan for taking care of Assyria too. Because... there's this virgin-birth coming.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 08:07:29 EST-----

Let me just say, regarding that DBLSD entry, not a single one of their references even hints at an "almah", unchaste. I suppose someone might raise a point with SoS.6:8 "There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number." Well, its all in a love-poem, so they must be "randy" virgins!

Honestly. Whatever it may refer to, whether to wedding guests, or to the king's already enlarged harem, its obvious that the "virgins" have yet to enter into the category of "concubine", therefore they haven't been to bed with the king--or anyone else.

It boggles the mind. But what of the very next verse? SoS.6:9 "My dove, my undefiled..." ! Well, a queen's got to be pretty pure. And concubines, well, they're pretty high status, can't be monkeying around and expect to stay in the stable. Then virgins, now they're pure. But the Subject of the Poem, she is purest of the pure!

So, the "best example" I could find listed there is pretty lame, if someone is going to make a case for an unchaste "almah".


The BDB (I'm guessing its "updated"? given the modern choice of expressions there), what a terrible capitulation to the weltenshauung. Aren't these people the least bit embarrassed?

"...which may or may not be sexually active ... note: context will demand or suggest if the young woman is sexually active"

Do you think they could offer even one, single instance where these women were NOT chaste? Surely, if they are going to suggest that this could be any sort of nubile woman, they could find a single, incontrovertible instance?!? Right?

Nope, they use pretty much the same, exact references as the entry above. So, whether we go to the Hebrew or the LXX, and look up every option they give us, not a single case where one can find an unchaste "maiden", not unless one is predisposed to find one there.

It's pretty sad that a standard Bible dictionary today feels like it has to present its definitions in language broad enough to reflect every "theological tradition" under the sun, even notoriously debauched "Gnostic christianity". That's right, chastity as a virtue is the product of party-pooper "religion" zealots, and thanks to the "history of religion" school, we can relegate that idea to the dustbin.

Sad.