Isaiah 7:14 revisited

[Rob_BW]

I still see nothing in Matthew 1:23 that would preclude a double fulfillment.

 

[rlvaughn]

I still see nothing in Matthew 1:23 that would preclude a double fulfillment.

Rob, what would you say about the virgin part, regarding the first fulfillment in the days of Ahaz?

Thanks.

 

[Rob_BW]

Rob, what would you say about the virgin part, regarding the first fulfillment in the days of Ahaz?

Thanks.

While I'm not being knowledgeable in Hebrew syntax, my understanding would be that a maiden known to the audience conceived (in the old fashioned way, I reckon), and the child served as the sign against Ephraim and Damascus. I see no reason to believe the almah had to be Hezekiah's mother or Isaiah's wife.

 

[rlvaughn]

I don't think anyone in this thread has mentioned it (not that I agree), but I have heard some keep the meaning of virgin in Isaiah 7:14 by reckoning this woman referenced was a virgin at the time Isaiah prophesied. She would then marry and conceive in the old fashioned way.

 

[robycop3]

I have been told by a rabbi (And remember, he does not recognize Jesus as Messiah or God) that if an "almah" is/was single, her virginity is a gimme. If it's known a single woman's not a virgin, she can't be an almah.