Interpretation v Application

Since the Holy Spirit has informed us on what Is 7:14 meant (in Mat 1:23), we know it meant Christ.

One of the problems is that the prophecies bounce back and forth between Christ's first advent and second advent. For instance, take this passge.

Isa 61:1 "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,

When Jesus read this in the synagogue, Jesus quoted the passage only partially.

Luke 4:17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
Luke 4:19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD."
Luke 4:20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
Luke 4:21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."


He stopped before the "year of vengeance" because that part of the prophecy was NOT being fulfilled at that time. One has to watch very closely, and when the NT has told us what a passage means, then that is what it means--same Holy Spirit, you know, and He is not having senior moments.

 

I believe that certain OT events had only primary meaning to their immediate context (e.g. Isa 7:14), but that some NT authors, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, found "fulfillment" (not in the common "foretelling" sense of the word, but in the "satisfies" sense of the word) in the New Testament even though that was not the original purpose of the OT passage they use. This is different than a "double interpretation", in that the original OT text does not have two interpretations, but that an NT author under inspiration applies it differently than its interpretation was intended. This is foreign to our modern, western way of thinking, but was acceptable in ancient Jewish culture, and that's where God chose to produce the scripture, so I believed he used methods they were used to and understood, even if we always don't.

Example:

"Out of Egypt have I called my son" - interpretation is about Israel leaving Egypt (Hos 11:1). Matthew, under inspiration, finds "fulfillment" in Christ (Matt 2:15) without requiring the original text to inherently carry a dual interpretation.

 

There are no real fallacies with it, except the inconvenience it causes to preaching and writing. Whether or not it is a minority view is irrelevant. The only real question is, Is it correct?? Based on the fact that everybody without fail uses it, we would have to conclude that it is.

And here you have injected authorial intent. It is fine to have a double entendre. This is the only exception and it is governed by teh key words, Authorial intent. However, the "obvious-ness" of this assertion with John is dubious. It seems far more convenient than it does obvious.

Yes. Yes. No. The rock in teh OT was never interpreted as Christ. It was a rock. It symbolized Christ. Here you are not talking about meaning but rather pictures or "types" (in the non-technical sense). Brian brought up Hos 11:1, a text that many use to support double meaning. However, when we look at the text, it had only one meaning. Matthew uses it as a picture or an illustration of something else. That is not meaning.

This charge has been made often but I have never seen it substantiated by a bulletproof text. There is one that is somewhat challenging but it is not the one most people choose.

 

This would be what I would call typological or analogical "fulfillment." Plerow is used in many different ways and this is one of them. But it does not change the meaning of the passage.

 

My view is that Psalm 16 and 22 are exclusively Messianic. I didn't always think this way but Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament pretty much convinced me. Read Psalm 22 as Christ's thoughts on the cross -- quite breathtaking.

I don't think that a single interpretation view rules out the concept of types. At least I think types are legitimate. Don't know how others feel about that.

Andy

 

This is totally off topic, so please forgive me, but I just noticed that BrianT is back.

Welcome back Brian T! You have been missed around here! I am glad to see you back.

In Christ,

Laura

 

I agree. But the kicker is that the Holy Spirit inspired this fulfillment - and the Holy Spirit, being God and thus omniscient, knew he would inspire NT fulfillment of an OT passage *at the time the OT passage was written*. When he inspired Hosea to write, he *already knew* he was going to use the text in Matthew as well. So although an OT passage can have a single, primary interpretation, it can also have an second, intended (by the Holy Spirit, not the inspired OT author) fulfillment in the NT about something it was not originally about. This is much more than just a "picture or illustration", but it is also much less than "dual interpretation".

I know you disagree, but I believe Isa 7:14 has the exact same thing going on, as do most (all?) of the fulfillments Matthew lists in chapters 1-3. I have absolutely no problem with "almah" referring to a "young maiden" in Ahaz's time and Isa 7:14 having primary interpretation about that young maiden, and the Holy Spirit using this same technique to inspire Matthew to find fulfillment in the "virgin" Mary. It's sort of a "middle of the road" view, and most people don't understand it (maybe I don't explain it well enough). The disclaimer I put on this understanding is that "secondary" fulfillment of any passage can only be done by divine inspiration (ie. the NT authors) - we *should not* try to find "types" or "secondary fulfillment" on our own: the only reliable ones are the ones already inspired into scripture.

 

Thanks Laura!

 

Why focus the discussion on subtle examples when there seem to be very dramatic ones? How about Passover? Can anyone deny that the Passover story can and should be interpreted as an historic event, yet is also symbolic of Jesus? Perhaps that's what some here mean by "two applications". But to me, the fact that much of the OT is a shadow of Christ and Heavenly things, yet was also often meant to be taken literally means there are two interpretations -- one which was hidden until later.

What about Ephesians 5? Paul explains some foundational truths about marriage, which are not just about marriage between men and women. Almost everything he says is from a practical perspective, and then he tosses in the following as a "by the way"...

And then he wraps up with the practical again...

 

I don't disagree but I don't think you use the word "fulfill" properly here. These examples are not "fulfillments" as in prophetic, but rather illustrations. We use this all the time in preaching. We use illustrations to illustrate a point. That is not adding meaning and Matthew's use of illustration or analogy does not add meaning.

But the same word cannot mean two different things in "one and the same context" (as Terry puts it). Payne said that this passage shows the fallacy of those who resort to double fulfillment theories because 'almah either means virgin or it doesn't; it does not and cannot mean both.

This disclaimer rules out virtually all double fulfillment/double meaning, such as has been talked about here. However, I don't think you can find a place where a NT author violated the position I have taken. I have seen most of the attempts to argue for it and I think there are valid explanations for every one that don't involve violating teh hermeneutic.

 

I have already stated I don't think these are fulfillments in the foretelling sense. But I also believe they are more than "illustrations" or "analogy".

I totally agree with the first part. But I see two contexts: The context of Ahaz, and the context of Christ. I agree it cannot mean both *in the same context*. The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to use the verse (and thus the word) in a new context.

Edit: just like "son" has a different meaning between Hos 11:1 and Matt 2:15, because there are two different contexts.

[ June 10, 2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

In general, I believe that "one interpretation" for a passage is a valid principal. However, there are times when an author makes a statement and fully intends a dual meaning. Since this is a ligitimate use of language, it is unnecessary to restrict the biblical writers (men and God) from using it. Recognizing double-meanings in certain passages does not require us to find double meanings in all passages any more that Paul's allegorical interpretation of an OT passage in Galations requires us (or allows us) to allegorize other stories.

In his commentary on John, D.A. Carson lists a number of "double meanings" (Carson's phrase) found in John. Let me point out two. First is John 3:3; "unless a man is born _______ he cannot see the kingdom of God. The word in the blank can mean "again" or "from above". That John intended both meanings is certainly defensible.
Second is John 11:50 in which Caiaphas says "it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish". While Caiaphas intended this statement as support for killing Jesus in that he thought it was best for the current political situation, John interprets it as a prophecy of the theological meaning of Jesus' death. Both meanings are valid.

Use of double meaning is a valid way to write and to communicate. It does not make language unclear or confusing, rather it enriches it. Use of double-meaning is neither dishonest nor immoral. So why, in the face of clear examples of double-meaning do some in the field of hernemuetics have a philisophical rule prohibiting it?

 

Another example: Ezekiel 28 -- who is in view here, the king of tyre, satan or both?

 

You misunderstand "context." "Context" means literary context. The literary context of Isa 7:14 is Isa 7:14. Matthew says that Isaiah was talking about Christ. That leaves no room for Isaiah to be talking about anyone else.

Nicholas (I think) comments on the use of double entendre (which is intended). A double meaning that is intended is fine. That is authorial intent and that is not what we are talking. I do not believe that John 3 is one of those times. The fact is that everyone uses my hermeneutic. It is not a philosophical opposition to it. It is a simple matter of fact. You do not use this hermeneutic anywhere else. You would correct your children if they found a double meaning in your words that you did not intend. This is simply the nature of language.

 

I disagree. Matthew does NOT say Isaiah was talking about Christ, you are reading that into the text. He simply says Christ was born of the virgin Mary, that the passage in Isaiah might be "fulfilled". Just like he does NOT say Hosea was talking about Christ, but instead simply says Jesus was in Egypt until the death of Herod, that the passage in Hosea might be "fulfilled". This fits exactly with what I (and even you) have been saying about "fulfillment" in the non-foretelling sense. I believe both these fulfillments (and a few others) are of the same type, and I see no reason to believe otherwise: they allow for the divine inspiration of Matthew, the virgin birth of Christ, fulfillment of the OT in the NT, and a strong preservation of the primary context of the passage.

I think you basically agree with me about Hos 11:1/Matt 2:15, and even recognize that the use of the Hebrew word "ben" (son) has a different meaning in the OT passage than it does in the NT fulfillment. Why should Isa 7:14 (with "almah") be any different?

[ June 10, 2003, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Read a couple of my previous posts in this thread. "Fulfilled" does not always mean a direct, intended resolution of a foretold event (i.e. the "common" understanding of "fulfilled"), but sometimes means in a "satisfies, measures up" sense. Compare Matt 2:15 ("out of Egypt I have called my son"), talking about Jesus returning from Egypt after Herod was dead, being a "fulfillment" of Hosea 11:1 - yet Hosea 11:1, *in context*, is about the Lord delivering Israel from bondage, let by Moses. "ben" (son) in Hos 11:1 refers to Israel as a nation, and in Matt 2:15 refers to Christ as a single person. Hos 11:1 was not a foretelling of Christ, yet Christ "fulfilled" it nonetheless. Matthew, under divine inspiration, found "fulfillment" of Hos 11:1 in Christ, just as he found "fulfillment" of Isa 7:14, where the primary context was about an "almah" (young woman) in Ahaz's time conceiving, as a sign Ahaz would not be overthrown by the advancing enemy. Yet Matthew finds "fulfillment" in Christ, not as the result of foretelling but as a satisfied example (for lack of a better way of putting it.

 

The problem I have with your analogy is this. In the Hosea 11/Matthew 2 example, the general meaning of “son” stays the same, only the referent changes (from Israel to Christ); however, in the Isaiah 7/Matthew 1 example, not only does the referent change (from some unknown maiden to Mary) but so does the general meaning of “virgin.” In other words, Christ’s birth doesn’t really fulfill the picture in Isaiah 7 if the sign to Ahaz was just a normal conception. Mary didn’t have a normal conception. That’s the whole point.

Andy

 

I don't have an analogy. I'm just explaining how I understand Matthew's use of the OT.

The "general" meaning? In Hos, it refers to a nation. In Matt, it refers to a single person, Christ.

"virgin" is an English translation. The Hebrew word, "almah" means young maiden (which, in Jewish culture, were virgins by default, thus making the words largely synonymous). Depending on context, almah can mean virgin, or not necessarily (in the KJV, it is translated "maid" in Exo 2:8 and Prov 30:19, and "damsel" in Psa 68:25). The general meaning of the word "almah" has more continutity in this sense than the use of "ben" (son) in Hos 11:1.

No, that's not the whole point. Yes, Mary didn't have a normal conception (she was a Virgin, and not just a "maiden", as Matthew under inspiration tells us, but that the birth of the child will bring salvation to the people, "for he shall save his people" as Matthew says, and that "God [is] with us": Christ brough eternal spiritual salvation to the world and God was with men, the child in Isa 7 brough temporary physical salvation to Ahaz and his people and God was on the side of Ahaz. Read Isa 7 as a whole, specifically noting verses 15 and 16.

Also ask yourself: if Isa 7:14 was primarily a prophecy about Christ, was was Christ named "Jesus" and not "Emmanuel"? I believe a young maiden in Ahaz's day conceived and gave birth to a son, literally named "Immanuel" and that the threat of Ahaz's enemies was removed before the child was old enough to know right from wrong, just as the passage tells us.

 

Brian, the ALMAH in 7:14 cannot be both a virgin and a non-virgin at the same time. That is the problem with your position. The problem with trying to bring Hos into this discussion si that it is entirely dissimilar. Hos is a historical statement; Isaiah is a prophecy. A woman bearing a child in Isaiah's time was not a virgin and such a birth would have no sign value to the house of David. What kind of miraculous "sign" is something that happens everyday? None. The events in 7:14 were to be a sign, something out of the ordinary that would show the house of David that it would not be destroyed by the Syro-Ephraimite coalition. A woman conceiving and giving birth in a normal way would not be a sign; that happened every day.