Interpretation v Application

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?

As alluded to by another, are you suggesting the Israelites knew the full interpretive implications of the Passover during its implementation and practice?

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.

Do you believe Paul was influenced by his Jewish tutelage? If God inspired authors in their own styles, etc., then it would seem to reason that Paul employed Jewish methods of interpretation such as midrash, pesher, etc. We are doing the apostle a misjustice if we seek to force a strictly historical-grammatical hermeneutic upon him.


In the end, it seems to me that your allowances for double entendres, typology, analogies, and so forth makes your heremeneutical practices differ largely in semantics only.

 

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 think Paul's use is a prime example single meaning and illustration. His point is not that a preacher is an ox or that Deut 25:4 was foreshadowing the existence of paid pastors. Deut 25:4 simply states the fact that a worker has the right to gain food (subsistence) from his work. Paul applies that lesson in 1 Cor by appealing to a well-known principle that some in the church were willing to overlook. This passage doesn't help you at all.

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:

1) Obviously there is a clear distinction between the two situations, viz., divine inspiration. The Bible has two authors making it a unique piece of literature that cannot be compared to a modern conversation. With that said ...

2) Using your example, if I gave you reason to believe that I was speaking on two different levels (eg, if I used the word light or darkness to represent not only a condition of the world itself but a condition of the spiritual state), then you would have ample reason to believe my words have a deeper meaning. As a matter of fact, you would be shortchanging yourself to understand at only one level (Nicodemus' & the Samaritan woman's problem).

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).

It seems obvious Paul interpreted certain passages (eg, Deut 25.4) outside of the way the original author might have intended (which would be common in a midrash/pesher hermeneutic). Paul had a Christological perspective of the OT (which would make for a great Master's thesis -- oh wait it has already been done ) 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.


I think we are close to saying the same thing but with some definite differences.

Should we take a vote to see who is right?

 

I’m afraid I still disagree. Are you saying that Matthew was justified in claiming fulfilled prophecy just because Mary happened to be a young maiden? The fact that she was a virgin contributed nothing to the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

Andy

 

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. That's not your fault though, I think it's mine.

The fact that Mary was a virgin contributed a LOT to the fulfillment (but it was certainly not the only thing that contributed). I'm focusing more on *how* it contributed: Matthew (under inspiration) uses the events of the prophecy in Isa 7, with a different contextual meaning of the word "almah", to show "fulfillment" (in the non-foretelling sense) in Christ. The word "almah", which can mean "maiden" OR "virgin" (depending on context) makes the fulfillment that much stronger, because Matt can tie to Isa 7 not only via the concept of a child coming, soon salvation, and the presence of God, but also via the virginity of Mary.

Take a step back: do you see how this works in Hos 11:1/Matt 2:15, where Matt ties together the return from Egypt of God's chosen (Israel in the former, Jesus in the latter), and it hinges on the word "son" (which has a different meaning in each context)? If you understand what I'm saying about that "fulfillment", you should understand what I'm saying about Isa 7:14, for I am saying the exact same type of "fulfillment" is going on.

Read Isa 7:1-16, reading verse 16 twice. The prophecy, in context, was for Ahaz and his concern about the kings coming against him. Verse 14 says a child will be born, named Immanuel, and that before the child is old enough to choose between good and evil, the enemy will be forsaken of both the kings coming against him. This is all going on several hundred years before Christ is born! I sincerely doubt those kings lived and stayed in power for hundreds of years, and finally died or were overthrown when Jesus was an infant.

One last question. 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.

 

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."

Additionally, it has reference to the Davidic covenant. If Ahaz is thrown off and the son of Tabeel is put on the throne (cf 7:1-9), then the Davidic covenant will be broken. God is ensuring the hosue of David that he will not allow that to happen. The assurance takes the form of a king (cf Isa 9:6-8) that will be Immanuel, God with us. That can only be Christ. No one in the time of Ahaz qualifies.

Additionally, a miraculous sign is in view and normal childbirth is not "sign like." It happens all the time. Ahaz could have written off the birth of his own child to a mere coincidence. That would have proved nothing.

As for Christ never being called Immanuel, we do not know that. We see other cases where someone has two names (e.g. Benjamin/Benoni) and yet one of them is never used elsewhere in SCripture. I think Solomon had two names as well but I can't remember what the other one was.

 

Apparently I am not being understood.

Out of Egypt, God called his son. In that sentence, does "son" mean "nation", or "a single, individual male offspring"?

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>[/QUOTE]You do? Who was given the name "Immanuel"? Christ is never given that name, Mary named him JESUS.

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.

Pastor Larry, bottom line is I don't understand why you even care that I disagree with you. My view affirms everything your view does. It affirms Christ's deity, his virgin conception and birth, divine inspiration of scripture, fulfillment of prophecy, etc. It just allows a stronger contextual flow inside the chapter of Isaiah 7, employs a method of interpretation that Matthew clearly and repeatedly uses again just a few verses later (Matt 2:15, and 17-18), and allows a clear, literal fulfillment of a child named "Immanuel" as a sign for Ahaz. In short, it's got all the positives of your view (plus some) without adding any negatives - so I don't understand why it's so hard to deal with.

 

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. "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.

You are right that the prophecy is not just about the conception. But that is irrelevant because the prophecy does include the conception.

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.

The reality is that this text is often thrown out as a proof of sensus plenior and it is not hard to demonstrate that it does not support that. This is simply an academic discussion.

 

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.
</font>[/QUOTE]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.

 

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.

Grogan says: Matthew’s use of plhrovw (Greek word translated fulfilled) is “very wide-ranging and flexible and embraces many different kinds of correspondence between and OT passage and a NT event.” (Grogan, “Isaiah,” p. 64. Hagner says, “The quoted texts themselves are as a rule not even predictive of future events” (Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 WBC [Dallas, TX: Word, 1993], p. lv). The use of plhrovw can be varied enough to use it in a typological or illustrative sense, as no doubt Matthew does. But those passages where he does so are, like Hagner says, not predictive passages. By contrast, the passage in Isaiah 7:14 is clearly predictive.)

So the point is that Hos 11:1 is not predictive and is totally different than Isa 7:14, a point that I already made. Plerow has a very wide range of usage. The fact that it is used by an author only means that we must look at what he is referencing to see what he means. Hos 11:1/Matt 2:15 is clearly different in nature than Isa 7:14/Matt 1:23ff.

But we have beat this up pretty good and there is no need for either of us to repeat ourselves.