Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Pastor Larry, "almah" CAN mean both a virgin and a non-virgin at the same time, if *two contexts* use the passage which I believe is happening, as I've already explained. Just like "ben" (son) CAN mean both a nation and a single person at the same time, since *two contexts* use the passage.
As I've already explained above, the conception itself was not the prophecy given to Ahaz. There was more.
You can't be serious here. If I hold a view that is in the minority of the evangelical world, I may need to re-evaluate. That does not mean my theology is controlled by the majority of beliefs, but neither does it mean it is irrelevant.
I miss your point here.
Are you suggesting that the OT writers knew in full detail the complete interpretation of everything they wrote? In other words, David knew when he penned Psalm 16 the details of how the Messiah would suffer, die, and then be raised back to life after 3 days? If this interpretation were so clear, why did no one appear to understand it until after the ascension?
Actually it would be far more convenient to simply understand darkness in John as physical darkness and nothing more.
The simple one is Deut 25.4 -- 1 Cor 9.9. It is obvious Paul employs a hermeneutical method here that would be condemned by the majority of modern exegetes.
I am dead serious but I think you misunderstand. My point is that the number of people who hold a particular position is irrelevant. I am not speaking of the position itself. It may be right or wrong, but it is not determined by the number of people who hold it. The majority of religious people believe that there is salvation outside of Jesus Christ. Yet that doctrine is unequivocally false. My point is that we should not judge the rightness or wrongness of an idea based on the number of people who hold it.
I miss your point here.
</font>[/QUOTE]My poins is that if you do not use my hermeneutic, you can't communicate. You interact with my words believing that they have a single meaning determined by what I intend for you to understand. If you treated my words like some are willing to treat Scripture, you would be looking for deeper meanings. You don't do that. You take it at face value.Not at all ... I am suggesting that they intended the proper meaning. 1 Peter 1:12-13 is clear that they did not understand everything; but it is clear that they did understand what they were talking about.
This is true. But my point was that if we simply used real hermeneutics on Scripture, preachign would get a lot harder because added study would be necessary. We would not be able to preach our own ideas just added in as a deeper meaning to a text somewhere. There would be an objective standard for the text. The most obvious meaning of John is physical darkness and there is no reason to think of anything else.
Hold on a second ... you should said the majority of modern exegetes agree with you, not me. What exactly do you mean? Your words here are an interesting example of this whole problem. Notice how I believe your words have meaning. I could say "Ah hah, I have found the deeper meaning. The majority of exegetes (who you admit believe in sensus plenior) would reject Paul's use (single meaning) and therefore you have just proven that I am right and you are wrong." Now, I don't believe that is what you intended. So I kick it back to you and say, What did you mean?
I disagree. I think you are doing the apostle an injustice by failing to limit yourself to grammatical historical exegesis. Just as I would be very upset if you were to misuse my words (and you would be if I misused yours), so we have no right to use Paul's words for other than what he intended.
I don't think so at all. I think there is a substantive difference, largely in the issue of prophecy.
But the number of orthodox scholars who embrace a certain position should cause us to re-evaluate when ours differs.
Two points:
And neither am I suggesting they were ignorant of the future fulfillment of their words. I simply maintain that the OT authors were writing in a specific context for a specific purpose and yet their words were not entirely understood or interpreted fully until the Christ-event (& end times). These words (Ps 22 or 16 for example) were not meaningless in their time. They had an appropriate interpretation at the time, but the complete meaning was not understood. Thus there was a present interpretation and an interpretation yet to come (which you feel comfortable labeling typology).
I am not suggesting hermeneutics becomes a free-for-all for discovering hidden meanings, but where there is a clear evidence of a deeper meaning, it is appropriate. We have all heard our fair share of "typology" that was merely fiction or borderline false teaching. But we must not eliminate an obvious tendency of some of the Scripture writers to communicate at a deeper level. Any detailed study of John's gospel would reveal his habit of writing at two levels (which would indicate there is reason to believe darkness can symbolize a spiritual state as well).
What I am saying is that the apostle was: a) under divine inspiration; b) was trained in a hermeneutical method foreign to us; and c) utilized his own method and style to interpret the OT (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).
) that controlled his exegesis of the OT. Paul interpreted with rose-colored glasses (no I am not using a deeper meaning that has to do with the blood, although.... ).I was speaking specifically to Paul's hermeneutic and not mine. It is unfair to label Paul's hermeneutic with a modern method. Following a legitimate motif throughout a book does not violate a historical-grammatical approach.
No, I'm not saying that. I usually regret opening my mouth on this topic because for some reason I have a hard time getting people to understand what I'm saying.
I will not belabor this (much longer), and I agree that almah can mean either maiden or virgin, but the point is that it can mean either/or, but not both. You have it meaning both and that is why it violates the normal usage of language.
A common misunderstanding. The "you" in the prophecy has switched to plural and is now addressed to the house of David, no longer Ahaz himself. Remember, he has already rejected a sign; his ears are plugged. Isaiah is now talking to the house of David in general and the Davidica Covenant is at stake.
The two to three sets a time frame. In the prophetic mind of Isaiah, the virgin is already pregnant and therefore the birth is imminent. That sets in motion the 2-3 year time frame will begin within 9 or so months. The time frame is the only relevant part to Ahaz. It is not necessary for Ahaz to live to the birth of Christ for this sign to have relevance. Remember as well that the birth of Isaiah's third son has a similar, parallel thought that brings the time into view once again.
I do as well. I fail to see how a generic child (i.e., someone other than teh Son of God born to Mary) can qualify as God with us. The various ideas are a wife of Ahaz or one of his harem, the son of Isaiah's wife (who wasn't a virgin anyway), or women in general in Israel. None of these births would give any indication of "God with us." There was only one person who qualifies and that was Christ. The child born had to be someone who could really signify "God with us."Isa 7:14 clearly prophecies that the child's mother will name the child "Immanuel". Do you believe this prophecy was *literally* fulfilled? I sure do.
Apparently I am not being understood.
Yes, Ahaz and his people. Not just Ahaz himself would have been concerned about the threat of war. No problem.
No, Isaiah said "a 'almah' shall conceive" 'Shall' is future tense. This allows for a present maiden (even a virgin) to conceive in the future. Read the whole passage, the prophecy is not just about the conception, really. I'm not making that up.
I do as well.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Isa 7:14 clearly prophecies that the child's mother will name the child "Immanuel". Do you believe this prophecy was *literally* fulfilled? I sure do.
The name *means* "God with us", it does not say the name by default *qualifies* someone as God. The OT is *full* of names that carry similar meanings, and don't make those people literally *into* what their name means. A child born in Ahaz's time can be called "Immanuel" without that child being God himself. His name would just be a reminder that God is with his people. This is another tie Matthew uses, connecting the events to Christ, who literally *is/was* "God with us".
How someone may or may not respond to a fulfillment does not affect the validity of the fulfillment.
Neither is it a prophecy ... so how can a non-prophecy be fulfilled??? Simple: It can't. Therefore, you are bringing apples into a discussion about oranges. What Matthew did was use illustration; he did not communicate a fulfilled prophecy as he did with Isaiah and Christ.
He actually calls it the "house of David." My point is that this does not clinch the near term "relevance" and demand a near term birth. If anything, it removes the necessity of near term relevance and fulfillment.
Maybe you should read the passage.No, Isaiah said "a 'almah' shall conceive" 'Shall' is future tense. This allows for a present maiden (even a virgin) to conceive in the future. Read the whole passage, the prophecy is not just about the conception, really. I'm not making that up.
"harah" is an adjective not a verb; it is an adjective in a verbless clause. "Shall" was supplied first by the LXX most likely with "en gastri exei," not Isaiah. The particple yoledeth is a futurum instans describing an imminent event (IBHS 37.6; GKC, 116p). What Isaiah said is a pregnant virgin is bearing or is about to bear a child. The grammatical/lexical analysis of the verse is that Isaiah saw a virgin who was pregnant and on the verge of bearing the child. Remember, the Hebrew text is what Isaiah wrote; not the English translation.Do you know everything that Jesus was ever called?? How did you come by that information? I have already pointed out at least two instances of people who had two names, that you would never know about except for a passing reference. The fact is that Jesus is the only one who was "God with us." No other human can make a claim to being God.
I think that this totally misses the point of the sign. I don't see how a generic child can be a miraculous sign of God being with us to an endangered monarchy. The answer to the house of David's fear was that there was a king coming who would be "God with us." That was the Messiah (cf. 9:6-8). A generic child born with the name Immanuel would mean nothing "signlike" apart from the miraculous conception/birth and a particular personage.
But you must go back to the point of the sign, to make a point. Ahaz had already rejected a sign but the house of David was being assured of its existence for continuing generations.
Because this was the test case being used for sensus plenior. For you and I, this is a largely academic discussion.
It is not hard to deal with at all. I have dealt with it at some length. Your view brings way more negatives to the table then it does postive. It does not follow the context and answer the question at hand; it does not show any relation to the hermeneutic that Matthew uses; it violates the normal use of language; and it does not preoperly deal with the actual text itself. Apart from all that, there is no problem.
Neither is it a prophecy ... so how can a non-prophecy be fulfilled??? Simple: It can't. Therefore, you are bringing apples into a discussion about oranges. What Matthew did was use illustration; he did not communicate a fulfilled prophecy as he did with Isaiah and Christ.
You can bang your head on the table all you want and Hosea 11:1 will still not be a prophecy. It is a historical statement of fact that Matthew uses as an illustration or a similarity. I am the one who should be banging my head on the table. I have said that several times and you keep going on like it is prophecy.Originally posted by BrianT:
I wish this forum had a "banging head on table" emoticon.
Matt 2:15 "And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."
I'm done. Anything else would just be repeating myself.