"Almah" (Isaiah 7:14)

[AmbroseSJ]

patrick457:

Of course I’m not denying that Isaiah’s words have a relevance (have their ultimate relevance) in the birth of Jesus. But the way I see it, I just feel that a few Christians seem to talk about Isaiah 7:14 as if it couldn’t be anything other than the birth of Jesus. They just make it appear as if that particular verse isn’t about anything in Isaiah’s time; he instead is speaking about an event that will happen centuries later. They make it appear as if it’s an either-or issue. I say it’s both.

I appreciate your view, and agree. It’s just that “the great sign” in its contemporary fulfillment seems lost and forced. If it weren’t for the birth of Jesus, I doubt if anyone could point to one single “great sign” in chapters 7 & 8. Rather they would find warnings, and somewhat expected predictions of invasions (although Ahaz may have not expected them Isaiah seems to think so.) But, I must always keep in mind that it is Scripture itself which gives us the interpretation of the Great Sign (Matt 1:23)

But as you say, it is not an either/or issue. It wouldn’t make sense for Isaiah to prophecy this birth if there was NO relevance to Israel’s situation at the time.

When Matthew quotes Isaiah 7 and says that Jesus’ conception was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s statement, it’s probably not so much like Isaiah being a sort of fortune-teller predicting that in the distant future, so-and-so would happen at a specific date, but rather Isaiah’s words having enough relevance that Matthew from generations later could see his words about the birth of a boy who is ‘God-with-us’ being most relevant in this particular situation, when God really came down with us in the form of Jesus. (In this sense, the birth of Jesus is its ‘fulfillment’ par excellence.) In other words, it’s not so much a prediction by a past writer of the ‘future’ as it is of a present writer seeing the past being echoed right here and now. ‘Applicability’ might be a good term to use here.

In my view this is how MOST prophecies are ultimately revealed! IOW, it is suddenly seen as being fulfilled at a time in the future, by those in the future, who realize the ultimate “applicability.” OTOH, prophecies in their contemporary context would be vague and difficult to imagine, if not downright inconceivable. So as you say, it wasn’t as if Isaiah’s prediction of the birth of the Messiah by a virgin was clearly forseen here (even by Isaiah perhaps.) But when the ultimate fulfillment did take place, the “great sign given by God” suddenly makes sense (at last!)

So we may be arguing at cross-purposes, or using different terminology.

 

[Lumdrop]

Word meanings change over time, and Hebrew isn’t the most clear language to begin with.
I imagine the word almah probably had a connotation of virginity in those days, and that’s why the LXX translators chose partheno for the prophecy of Christ’s birth.

 

[Cathoholic]

ISAIAH 7:14 (with bold mine) 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold an almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Coder never came back on here (at least so far).

I think the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 has multiple layers of meaning.

I think the culmination and the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 in its fullest sense has to do with the Virgin Birth of Jesus the Messiah.

I think there is secondary meaning concerning the Church Jesus founded.

I also think to a lesser degree of “great”ness (but more immediacy), that there was another layer of Isaiah 7:14 that had immediate fulfillment.

---

Coder (in case you come back here) you said:

QUOTE:
Even though the Septuagint translates “almah” to Greek parthenos which generally means “virgin” the Hebrew word for virgin is actually “betulah” and is used elsewhere in Isaiah.

Almah can mean “virgin” or “young woman” Coder…

In Isaiah 7 it almost certainly means BOTH.

The fact that SOME translators render it “young woman” and others render it as “virgin” is exactly what I’d expect.

ISAIAH 7:14 (RSV) 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el.

ISAIAH 7:14 (DRV) 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

ISAIAH 7:14 (NIV) 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

ISAIAH 7:14 (KJV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

ISAIAH 7:14 (Knox) Sign you ask none, but sign the Lord will give you. Maid shall be with child, and shall bear a son, that shall be called Emmanuel.

---

As the Messianic Jewish author, Michael Brown states :

QUOTE:
“There is no single word in biblical Hebrew that always and only means ‘virgin’”.

The “betulah” argument is not persuasive.

As a matter of fact, the whole argument can be turned around to see why “almah” is the perfect Hebrew word to use here.

Why?

Consider the Hebrew word “Na’ara” which means “young woman”.

Hypothetical Objection: If Isaiah had intended any reference to a virgin birth, Isaiah would have used the Hebrew word “betulah” which is Hebrew for virgin. Betulah = Virgin

Answer: If Isaiah had intended any reference ONLY to a mere “young woman” giving birth, Isaiah should have used the Hebrew word “na’arah ” (also sometimes transliterated as “na’ara”), which is Hebrew for “young woman”.

Naarah (na’arah) = Young Woman

GENESIS 24:16 16 The maiden (na’arah ) was very fair to look upon, a virgin (betulah), whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, and filled her jar, and came up.

Why bother saying, “whom no man had known”?

Genesis already described this young woman (Rebekah) as a “betulah”.

So why bother saying, “whom no man had known”?

Because “betulah” doesn’t ALWAYS necessitate virginity so a further description was necessary here that’s why.

I am not denying Rebekah was a virgin. I am just pointing out what Brown and others have pointed out, that some clarification was in order despite the word “betulah” being there in Genesis 24 to describe Rebekah.

---

Alma was the perfect word in Isaiah 7 for a layered meaning. No “naarah” there.

NOT ISAIAH 7:14 (with bold mine) 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a naarah shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

---

*Also consider . . . . *

In Isaiah 47:1 the “Daughter of Babylon” is described as a “betulah”.

Yet we see a few verses later, this “daughter” will be widowed AND lose her children.

And this imagery shouldn’t be alluding to kiddushin and nisuin because this is at least figuratively, the daughter of “BABYLON” and the “Chaldeans”.

Pagan girls didn’t undergo kiddushin.

Again. In Isaiah 47:1 the “Daughter of Babylon” is described as a “betulah”. Yet we see a few verses later, this “daughter” will be widowed AND lose her children (clearly not “virginal imagery” that Isaiah is drawing upon here).

From Isaiah 47 with parenthetical addition mine . . . .

**
ISAIAH 47:1, 5-8** 1 Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin (betulah) daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. . . . 5 Sit in silence, and go into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans; for you shall no more be called the mistress of kingdoms. 6 I was angry with my people, I profaned my heritage; I gave them into your hand, you showed them no mercy; on the aged you made your yoke exceedingly heavy. 7 You said, “I shall be mistress for ever,” so that you did not lay these things to heart or remember their end. 8 Now therefore hear this, you lover of pleasures, who sit securely, who say in your heart, “I am, and there is no one besides me; I shall not sit as a widow or know the loss of children”:

The word betulah does NOT always connote virginity.

“Almah” is a perfect word to use in Isaiah 7:14.

Almah and not “betulah” and not “na’arah” is the perfect word to use in Isaiah 7:14.

 

[patrick457]

I appreciate your view, and agree. It’s just that “the great sign” in its contemporary fulfillment seems lost and forced. If it weren’t for the birth of Jesus, I doubt if anyone could point to one single “great sign” in chapters 7 & 8. Rather they would find warnings, and somewhat expected predictions of invasions (although Ahaz may have not expected them Isaiah seems to think so.) But, I must always keep in mind that it is Scripture itself which gives us the interpretation of the Great Sign (Matt 1:23)

But as you say, it is not an either/or issue. It wouldn’t make sense for Isaiah to prophecy this birth if there was NO relevance to Israel’s situation at the time.

In my view this is how MOST prophecies are ultimately revealed! IOW, it is suddenly seen as being fulfilled at a time in the future, by those in the future, who realize the ultimate “applicability.” OTOH, prophecies in their contemporary context would be vague and difficult to imagine, if not downright inconceivable. So as you say, it wasn’t as if Isaiah’s prediction of the birth of the Messiah by a virgin was clearly forseen here (even by Isaiah perhaps.) But when the ultimate fulfillment did take place, the “great sign given by God” suddenly makes sense (at last!)

So we may be arguing at cross-purposes, or using different terminology.

Re. the ‘great sign’:

I think one problem we Christians face when reading this passage from Isaiah is that we’re too influenced by Matthew’s Christological reading of it. Matthew, by quoting only verse 14, makes parthenos, ‘virgin’, the keyword here; in the Christological sense, yes, it is right, but it does not necessarily follow that the same is true in Isaiah’s original context.

IMHO in the original context it is not the almah or anything about her virginity or whatever that’s being focused on. It is the circumstances that the almah’s son Immanuel will grow up in - a time when Judah is totally ransacked by Assyria, when ‘curds and honey’ will be in abundance - that is the main focus. I see the original ‘sign’ as being the Assyrian invasion being implied throughout the rest of the chapter, and the resulting eating of the curds and honey (a sign that the fields would not be cultivated - i.e. a bad sign): in other words, Immanuel’s life during the desolation of Judah by Assyria - the very same empire Ahaz allied himself to - is the original ‘sign’ the Lord is sending Ahaz (note, in the original Hebrew, the word for ‘you’ used in this passage is in the singular; in other words, Isaiah’s words is addressed to him).

 

[AmbroseSJ]

patrick457:

Re. the ‘great sign’:

I think one problem we Christians face when reading this passage from Isaiah is that we’re too influenced by Matthew’s Christological reading of it. Matthew, by quoting only verse 14, makes parthenos, ‘virgin’, the keyword here; in the Christological sense, yes, it is right, but it does not necessarily follow that the same is true in Isaiah’s original context.

I always come back to St. Augustine’s dictum “The Old Testament is revealed in the New, and the New Testament is hidden in the Old.”

IOW, trying to understand ANY of Isaiah OUTSIDE or divorced from the New Testament is going to be mere shadows and mystery. The New Testament FULFILLS the Old. It is not tacked on by some human agency.

Therefore your words “influenced by Matthew’s Christological reading” which seems to be saying that THIS is the forced reading, which I can never accede to.

But again, I don’t really believe you are saying that. I believe you are merely trying to illustrate that there was a contemporary fulfillment, which I also believe. It just wasn’t a “great sign.”

 

[Darryl_B]

I personally see a great big full stop, a change of subject between v16 and v17.

The only thing related to the sign is that the two kings will be deserted prior to Immanuel. That I believe was fulfilled according to Matthew’s theology.

Assyria is a completely different unrelated topic to the sign. It is bringing the subject matter back to Ahaz’s present.

Effectively this is the sign about your fear of the two kings, and compensation, but did I mention Assyria.

 

[patrick457]

I personally see a great big full stop, a change of subject between v16 and v17.

The only thing related to the sign is that the two kings will be deserted prior to Immanuel. That I believe was fulfilled according to Matthew’s theology.

Assyria is a completely different unrelated topic to the sign. It is bringing the subject matter back to Ahaz’s present.

Effectively this is the sign about your fear of the two kings, and compensation, but did I mention Assyria.

I personally disagree; I see 16 and 17 as forming a natural progression as they are. The desertion of the lands of the two kings harks back to verses 1-9, where Isaiah tells Ahaz that Ephraim and Syria are not a threat:

And the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out to meet Ahaz, you and qShear-jashub3 your son, at the end of rthe conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Washer’s Field. And say to him, ‘Be careful, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has devised evil against you, saying, “Let us go up against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it,” thus says the LORD God:

“It shall not stand,
and it shall not come to pass.
For the head of Syria is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is Rezin.
And within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be shattered from being a people.
And the head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah.
If you are not firm in faith,
you will not be firm at all.’”

So the way I see it, the gist of the whole chapter is (1-9) Isaiah goes to Ahaz to tell him that he shouldn’t be afraid of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition; (10-12) Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask a sign from Yhwh, but Ahaz refuses (it is possible that his refusal is tied to his already asking for help from Assyria, as mentioned in 2 Kings 16), at which (13-14) Isaiah tells that a boy named Immanuel will be born, and that by the time the kid reaches the age of reason, (15-17) not only will Syria and Ephraim be ravaged by Assyria, but Judah as well - symbolized by the curds and honey (15-16; 21-22), which would be the only available foodstuff in those days; there would be no grain or other produce because (19-20) the fields - the whole land - will become desolate, full of briars and thorns.

That’s essentially the thrust of the whole chapter I think: God tells Ahaz that trusting in man is folly, because today’s allies are tomorrow’s enemies. That was the original sign methinks. That’s probably the reason behind Immanuel’s name: “Hey! I am here, right among you people! My temple is literally within walking distance of your palace! So, explain why you were so worried about Syria and Ephraim that you went all the way to grovel to the king of Assyria?”

 

[ericc]

Hi Wesrock, yes, I’m no longer debating that point. I understand that Christians believe that the prophecy is more fully revealed in Matthew.

Matthew’s inspiration is a matter of religious faith that other religions (e.g. Jewish) don’t share. I’m just saying that different religions interpret “Almah” differently, that’s all. If there is evidence that some/all Jewish scholars supported the “virgin” interpretation centuries ago, many Jewish scholars today no longer have that interpretation (maybe they think “parthenos” was a mistranslation even by Jews - I don’t know). Jewish people today no longer use/support the LXX. For whatever reason, their theology has developed and they interpret the original Hebrew “almah” differently today.

I do see now that the Christian interpretation is valid based on Christian beliefs and Jewish interpretation is valid based on theirs.

Matthew wrote his piece around 64/70AD. The Palestinian version of LXX was still being used then(and continued to be used for many more years till the next 2 centuries I believe). If the Jewish authorities of the day were to spot such errors in Matthew’s writings, those anti-Christian Jews would have pounced on to it and denounced Matthew’s works. Jewish Christians would have noticed that error as well and demanded appropriate corrections since the NT books have not been selected and finalised yet. OT books would have been The Scriptures even for Christian Jews. So for his time, his Greek word choice must have been deemed acceptable then. Matthew wrote stuff that the Romans and Jewish authorities would have loved to discredit early Christianity if not true such as the Bethlehem birth, killing of the innocents by Herod, escape to Egypt etc.

A likely reason for such acceptance of Matthew’s work was that during those times, there was no OT canon. Pharisees and Sadducees disagree what should be constituted as Scriptures. You have other sects such as the Essenes who have their own views as well. Even then there were variants of such OT books circulating around. The LXX was not a condemned collection of OT translations either. Hence, it would be a reasonable take that during those times, the usage of “young maiden” do come with an expectation of virginity that it become pointless to quibble over such minor issues. It only became important when mainstream Judaism could not accommodate Christian Jews anymore.

 

[patrick457]

I always come back to St. Augustine’s dictum “The Old Testament is revealed in the New, and the New Testament is hidden in the Old.”

IOW, trying to understand ANY of Isaiah OUTSIDE or divorced from the New Testament is going to be mere shadows and mystery. The New Testament FULFILLS the Old. It is not tacked on by some human agency.

Therefore your words “influenced by Matthew’s Christological reading” which seems to be saying that THIS is the forced reading, which I can never accede to.

But again, I don’t really believe you are saying that. I believe you are merely trying to illustrate that there was a contemporary fulfillment, which I also believe. It just wasn’t a “great sign.”

I’m not implying of course that Matthew’s reading is ‘forced’. I’m just saying that there is this type of Jewish-Christian exegesis, where - sorry if I don’t explain this clealry - you see a certain keyword or phrase in Scripture that very much reminds you, that can be read as pointing to some current or past event, even if in the original context it may not necessarily be the main theme or word.

Case in point: Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks. “And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.” The original fulfillment of this prediction would have been the murder of the high priest Onias III (“the anointed one”) and the cessation of sacrifices under Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. Josephus, Jewish War 1: “[Antiochus] also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months.”) Some of the Fathers, however, by focusing on certain words, phrases and/or themes within the text, also saw this passage as in a way referring to the Antichrist or even Jesus (this passage is really where we get the idea of Jesus’ ministry lasting for three and a half years).

Two other examples (this time not a prediction, but a scriptural quote nevertheless).

St. Athanasius once used the Greek rendering of Genesis 19:24 (“And the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven” - a fairly literal rendering of the Hebrew) as proof-text for the belief that the Son is equal to the Father. While in the literal sense, the rather awkward - for us - phrasing (“And Yhwh rained … sulfur and fire from Yhwh”) is just how Hebrew grammar runs, Athanasius saw something deeper. He saw in the two instances of Kyrios ‘Lord’ in this text scriptural proof that the Father and the Son were equal to each other - he interpreted the two ‘Lords’ as being the Father and the Son, respectively.

Another example would be the Septuagint rendering of Judges 15:19 (“And God split open the hollow place that is at Lehi, and water came out from it”), where Samson throws down the jawbone he used to kill a thousand men. The Greek translator mistook the place name Lehi (‘jaw’) as a common noun, and accordingly rendered “the hollow place that is at Lehi” as the rather quirky “the wound of the jawbone.” Later Christians saw this phrase and accordingly applied meaningful interpretations to it: St. Caesarius of Arles saw the breaking of ‘the wound of the jawbone’ as being fulfilled in Christians (cf. John 7:38 “Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, ‘Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water’”). St. John of Damascus meanwhile saw it as symbolizing the relics of saints, and compared the water to the ointment that is supposed to exude from some relics.

Just like I said, ‘applicability’.

 

[porthos11]

Re. the ‘great sign’:

I think one problem we Christians face when reading this passage from Isaiah is that we’re too influenced by Matthew’s Christological reading of it. Matthew, by quoting only verse 14, makes parthenos, ‘virgin’, the keyword here; in the Christological sense, yes, it is right, but it does not necessarily follow that the same is true in Isaiah’s original context.

IMHO in the original context it is not the almah or anything about her virginity or whatever that’s being focused on. It is the circumstances that the almah’s son Immanuel will grow up in - a time when Judah is totally ransacked by Assyria, when ‘curds and honey’ will be in abundance - that is the main focus. I see the original ‘sign’ as being the Assyrian invasion being implied throughout the rest of the chapter, and the resulting eating of the curds and honey (a sign that the fields would not be cultivated - i.e. a bad sign): in other words, Immanuel’s life during the desolation of Judah by Assyria - the very same empire Ahaz allied himself to - is the original ‘sign’ the Lord is sending Ahaz (note, in the original Hebrew, the word for ‘you’ used in this passage is in the singular; in other words, Isaiah’s words is addressed to him).

Agreed, and this is what I’ve tried to point out several times. The primary and immediate fulfillment is NOT based on the word “almah” but is rather a matter of timing. It marks a “countdown” of sorts from that time to the destruction of Israel and Aram (which was only a few more years away). This immediate fulfillment required only a natural birth, but only at that particular time.

It IS indeed possible to read the Old Testament divorced from the New, especially when dealing with historical questions such as this one. Yes, we KNOW it finds its fulfillment in Matthew 1:23, but it does not exclude the primary interpretation involving Ahaz, Pekah and Rezin. This is why “young woman” is a perfectly fine translation for Isaiah 7:14, although it is never acceptable in Matthew 1:23.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

patrick457:

I’m not implying of course that Matthew’s reading is ‘forced’. I’m just saying that there is this type of Jewish-Christian exegesis, where - sorry if I don’t explain this clealry - you see a certain keyword or phrase in Scripture that very much reminds you, that can be read as pointing to some current or past event, even if in the original context it may not necessarily be the main theme or word.

Ok. I think what you are saying is that the *literal *meaning is not necessarily the prophetic meaning (as seen in the New Testament.) That is understood, at least by me.

 

[Darryl_B]

I personally disagree; I see 16 and 17 as forming a natural progression as they are. The desertion of the lands of the two kings harks back to verses 1-9, where Isaiah tells Ahaz that Ephraim and Syria are not a threat:

And the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out to meet Ahaz, you and qShear-jashub3 your son, at the end of rthe conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Washer’s Field. And say to him, ‘Be careful, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has devised evil against you, saying, “Let us go up against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it,” thus says the LORD God:

“It shall not stand,
and it shall not come to pass.
For the head of Syria is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is Rezin.
And within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be shattered from being a people.
And the head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah.
If you are not firm in faith,
you will not be firm at all.’”

So the way I see it, the gist of the whole chapter is (1-9) Isaiah goes to Ahaz to tell him that he shouldn’t be afraid of the Syro-Ephraimite coalition; (10-12) Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask a sign from Yhwh, but Ahaz refuses (it is possible that his refusal is tied to his already asking for help from Assyria, as mentioned in 2 Kings 16), at which (13-14) Isaiah tells that a boy named Immanuel will be born, and that by the time the kid reaches the age of reason, (15-17) not only will Syria and Ephraim be ravaged by Assyria, but Judah as well - symbolized by the curds and honey (15-16; 21-22), which would be the only available foodstuff in those days; there would be no grain or other produce because (19-20) the fields - the whole land - will become desolate, full of briars and thorns.

That’s essentially the thrust of the whole chapter I think: God tells Ahaz that trusting in man is folly, because today’s allies are tomorrow’s enemies. That was the original sign methinks. That’s probably the reason behind Immanuel’s name: “Hey! I am here, right among you people! My temple is literally within walking distance of your palace! So, explain why you were so worried about Syria and Ephraim that you went all the way to grovel to the king of Assyria?”

I guess we will agree to disagree then. Repetition of symbolism does not actually prove your case. The prophets generally did that as a literary device, on the one hand, on the other hand. On the one hand the sign and the two kings, on the other hand the Assyrians.

 

[Darryl_B]

Patrick457

I realized after my last post that I had presented 1 King Messiah, seed of David, a promise that your seed will go on even when it seems lost, 2 other kings and finally, 1 other king Assyria.

1 King Messiah Jesus Christ, 3 kings, gold frankincense and myrrh, but no longer kings, just simply Magi. Before He is weaned.

Still thinking this through.

 

[patrick457]

Patrick457

I realized after my last post that I had presented 1 King Messiah, seed of David, a promise that your seed will go on even when it seems lost, 2 other kings and finally, 1 other king Assyria.

1 King Messiah Jesus Christ, 3 kings, gold frankincense and myrrh, but no longer kings, just simply Magi. Before He is weaned.

Still thinking this through.

Thank you for demonstrating what I was talking about! Or something close to it!

This is pretty much one way Jews and early Christians could read Scripture: linking certain keywords or passages they found in the text with some event or theme.

I could give another example. There were these prophecies found in non-biblical Jewish literature that states that in the day of the Lord, “blood will flow from wood” and “a tree shall bend and stand upright.” In the original context these are supposed to be (rather eerie) supernatural signs that would herald the coming of that day, right up with the sun rising at night or turning black and the stars falling from the sky. Apparently, when the day of the Lord is about to come, fallen trees would come back to life and stand again and/or bleed.

Now early Christians noticed that these prophecies speak of “wood” and “blood.” They go, ‘A tree coming back to life, a tree that bleeds, a tree, hmm … that could only mean the cross, the crucifixion, and the resurrection!’

Similarly, again, he describes the cross in another Prophet, who says, “And when shall all these things be accomplished? saith the Lord. When the tree shall fall and rise, and when blood shall flow from the tree.” Here again you have a reference to the cross, and to him who should he crucified. (Epistle of Barnabas 12.1)

 

[Darryl_B]

Thank you for demonstrating what I was talking about! Or something close to it!

This is pretty much one way Jews and early Christians could read Scripture: linking certain keywords or passages they found in the text with some event or theme.

I could give another example. There were these prophecies found in non-biblical Jewish literature that states that in the day of the Lord, “blood will flow from wood” and “a tree shall bend and stand upright.” In the original context these are supposed to be (rather eerie) supernatural signs that would herald the coming of that day, right up with the sun rising at night or turning black and the stars falling from the sky. Apparently, when the day of the Lord is about to come, fallen trees would come back to life and stand again and/or bleed.

Now early Christians noticed that these prophecies speak of “wood” and “blood.” They go, ‘A tree coming back to life, a tree that bleeds, a tree, hmm … that could only mean the cross, the crucifixion, and the resurrection!’

Similarly, again, he describes the cross in another Prophet, who says, “And when shall all these things be accomplished? saith the Lord. When the tree shall fall and rise, and when blood shall flow from the tree.” Here again you have a reference to the cross, and to him who should he crucified. (Epistle of Barnabas 12.1)

Did Jesus Christ set a precedent when he

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.

We don’t actually know all that was expounded and how much was expounded.

 

[Darryl_B]

I would like to add a number of premises that I hold to be true, when a situation like this is considered.

1. Matthew is not just going take a verse out of context (I don’t mean the context of Isaiah I mean the context of current Jewish thought) because that will defeat his argument. “Well we all know that’s not what the passage means therefore the argument is pointless”.
2. I do not consider Matthew to be an ignorant back-water country-bumpkin, isolated from his environment.
3. I would expect a concurrency of thought, not just a specific Matthean interpretation of the passage. There is no reason to believe that the understanding was not wide-spread, verbally.
4. I would expect if any opposition arose against the application of this passage, then that would mean it is dangerous to an opponent, and therefore rejection would be fierce. Which is what I observe among Jewish authorship. If Matthew was wrong it would speak for itself, there would be no need for accusations of whore and bastard son.
5. I would expect if we cannot see that relationship that Matthew describes, we probably have lost information along the line somewhere, rather than necessarily concluding that Matthew is wrong.