versions??????

Pastor Larry,

I never wrote a thesis on the passage. I simply read the passage in context one day, and saw the verse differently. The sign was for Ahaz. If there was no immediate meaning for the verse, the sign was NOT for Ahaz, who would not live long enough to see it. I do believe the passage *does* have a Messianic purpose to it, but as a second element.

Why one or the other? I also believe Matthew wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit, inspired to use Midrash. Just like he was inspired to use Midrash in other parts of his introduction, like 2:15, 2:17-18, and 2:23, none of which in their original O.T. contexts were were primarily about Messiah (except 2:23, but it's still a Midrashic interpretation of Isa 11:1).

 

I think the sign does have a relevance for Ahaz ... the continuation of the davidic line which was threatened by Pekah and Rezin who wanted to remove Ahaz (the davidic ruler) and replace him with the son of Tabeel (a non-davidic ruler). If they succeed, the davidic covenant is broken. So God offers a sign as proof of his promise to the davidic covenant. Ahaz rejects it with false piety when he reality he had already gone to Assyria for help. The sign is for the house of David of which Ahaz is the representative. So while it has relevance for Ahaz, it is not a sign to Ahaz, as can be seen from the use of hte plurals combined with the refusal of Ahaz to ask for a sign. The relevance for Ahaz is the time frame (before the child born knows right or wrong, etc.), a time frame of 2-3 years by which time the threat from Pekah and Rezin will be over. However, greater dread is coming (v. 17). The prophecy is of a virgin who, in the mind of the prophet, is conceived of as pregnant. It does not mean that the virgin is pregnant. What is significant, and what rules out a contemporary fulfilment is that the woman is both a virgin and pregnant at the same time, something that cannot be said for any woman in the time of Ahaz, and something that can be said of only one woman anytime. That is why I believe a messianic meaning and fulfillment is the one and only meaning of the passage.

Why one or the other? I also believe Matthew wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit, inspired to use Midrash. Just like he was inspired to use Midrash in other parts of his introduction, like 2:15, 2:17-18, and 2:23, none of which in their original O.T. contexts were were primarily about Messiah (except 2:23, but it's still a Midrashic interpretation of Isa 11:1).[/QUOTE]Midrash was a creative hermeneutic that violated some of hte basic meanings of the text. It is unnecessary and unproven postulation that Matthew used it. It is typically (though not always) argued by those who reject inspiration in any direct sense. They argue for midrash because they can see no other option. Midrash gives the NT reader the option to say that Matthew was not really correct; he just saw some similarities that led him to write something. For them, the implication is that Mary was not really a virgin, or that Isaiah really didn't make such a prophecy, for that would be impossible for a human to make a prediction of something that unique that far in advance. For the evangelical student, committed to the biblical doctrine of inspiration, there is no need to use midrash as an explanation. There is a far better, and more clear, explanation.

Just a few thoughts ...

 

I agree Mary's conception was the only "virgin conception". But the passage says "(almah) shall conceive". "shall" is future tense, ie. it allows for a woman contemporary with Ahaz to be a virgin at the time the prophecy was given to not be a virgin when she conceived sometime in the future. In other words, the grammar does not preclude a normal conception in Ahaz's time.

I disagree. I mentioned Matt 2:15, the "fulfillment" of Hos 1:11, which wasn't even a "prophecy" in the first place, but a reference to past events. Matthew uses "Out of Egypt have I called my son" to find fulfillment in Christ, when in it's O.T. context it was about Israel leaving the bondage of Eypgt.

The next few verses say "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." This is from Jer 31:15, and again is NOT about the time of the birth of Messiah, because in Jer 31 the weeping is because the children have been taken captive (not killed) but will be returned (31:17). Matthew, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, uses Midrash to apply it to Christ.

How do YOU explain Matt 2:15 and 2:17-18, taking into account the contex of the O.T. where the quotes come from???

 

Actually the grammar does preclude that. It says a virgin is with child. The future is the rendering of the LXX, not the Hebrew of Isaiah. In the Hebrew, the woman is a virgin and pregnant at the same time. See the article referenced below.

A woman who is not a virgin does not qualify for the prophecy. Neither can the words bear more than one meaning. As Payne says, the woman is either a virgin or she is not. This idea that the same set of words can have multiple meanings destroys the very basis of rational communication. If Isaiah intended a virgin, then nothing else qualifies. If Isaiah intended someone other than a virgin, Matthew was simply wrong. Allow me to quote briefly (I have turned the footnotes into parenthetical references):

The point is that Isaiah intended to communicate a miraculous sign to the house of David and Matthew identified that sign as Christ.

See this article, particularly page 7 where the author directly addresses your contention:The Interpretation of Old Testament Prophecy

It is simple matter of seeing a similarity. Pleroo is used in several different ways by Matthew. A typological fulfillment is what it is usually called. There is still no basis to combine midrash with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is a dangerous and unnecessary inclusion into the doctrine of Scripture. These passage don't present any problems at all.

However, we are significantly off topic here ... Sorry folks.

 

Then why does *every* version I checked (and I checked quite a few), *including interlinears* render it in future "shall" or "will be"?

In Hebrew, the woman is an "almah". Even the KJV translates this word as "maid" in Exo 2:8 and Prov 30:19, and "damsels" in Psa 68:25

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Looking at other times "fulfill" is used, such as the passages I've already mentioned, proves this.

It is simple matter of seeing a similarity. Pleroo is used in several different ways by Matthew. A typological fulfillment is what it is usually called.
</font>[/QUOTE]Which is exactly how midrash works in these cases! What's the difference between what you just said, and what I have been saying??? Both those passages say scripture was "fulfilled", not that there was just a "similarity".

 

In response to Joseph Botwinick's question regarding Matthew 1:23...

Weymouth New Testament: maiden - not necessarily a virgin

Worldwide English New Testament: A young woman who has not slept with a man - last time I checked sleeping has nothing to do with getting pregnant

Tyndale New Testament: mayde (maid) - again, not necessarily a virgin

God's Truth: maid - still not necessarily a virgin

All these translations are available online at various web sites.

 

Thanks Keith! I am very surprised to see Tyndale's using "maid". But I guess technically Mary *was* a maiden, and those Bibles affirm Christ's divine conception in other verses.

Here's another thought: it could be argued that "virgin" is "gender neutral".

 

1611 KING JAMES VERSION
Are you using a butter knife or a sword?

"The child's father and mother marvelled at what was said about him."
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."
Luke 2:33

Which one denies the virgin birth?

"...in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"
Colossians 1:14

Which one leaves out the blood?

"For there are three that testify:"

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7

Which one denies the trinity?

"but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.
This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have
heard is coming and even now is already in the world. "

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye
have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:3

Which one leaves out Christ is come
in the flesh as a test of antichrist?

Is mostly ok all right for God's Word?

"first one is NIV"the other text is KJV

These are just a few examples. If you want real
POWER in your spiritual armour use the KJV
SWORD instead of a butter knife.

 

On the other hand, in the KJV, we have this contradiction
Josh 15:33-36
And in the valley, Eshtaol, and Zoreah, and Ashnah,

34 And Zanoah, and En-gannim, Tappuah, and Enam,

35 Jarmuth, and Adullam, Socoh, and Azekah,

36 And Sharaim, and Adithaim, and Gederah, and Gederothaim; fourteen cities with their villages:
KJV

It says they are fourteen, but you count them they are fifteen. In the NIV, you will find they have found a way to translate that does not give this contradiction. Hmmm - did they cheat in NIV or translate correctly?

 

Neither. Look up "denies" in a dictionary.

In this isolated verse, the first one does. Just like in the isolated verse of Jude 1:25, the KJV leaves out "Jesus Christ our Lord".

Neither.

In this isolated verse, the first one. Just like the KJV leaves out the "Holy Ghost" in Acts 4:25.

Why did you not include Jude 1:25, Acts 4:25, Psalm 145:13, and Phil 1:14 in your examples?

[ December 10, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]