Hear, O Israel!

[Randy_Carson]

Isaiah 7:10:14
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 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.

According to Jewish scholars, was this prophecy fulfilled?

 

[Della]

Isaiah 7:10:14
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 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.

According to Jewish scholars, was this prophecy fulfilled?

According to Jewish scholars who refute Christianity’s claims, none of the prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus, why should this one be any more important than any of the others?

In Hebrew the word “virgin” simply means maiden. It doesn’t signify if the maiden mentioned in the prophecy is a married woman or not. You see, the prophecies of the OT have more than one fulfillment. There is one for the times in which it was made, one that is spiritually understood, and one that was to be fulfilled by the Messiah. Not all prophecies were meant to be fulfilled in all three ways.

St. Matthew used the Greek word for virgin when he cited the prophecy from Isaiah because he saw that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by him being born of the Virgin. Matthew didn’t claim that the prophecy had no other fulfillment because he understood that the OT prophecies often had more than one fulfillment, as I mentioned above.

The Church doesn’t base doctrine on any particular verse(s). Rather, as St. Matthew understood it, the Church understands that these prophecies are a witness to Christ’s fulfillment, not proof of them, as we think of proof–as irrefutable evidence. Rather, the prophecies pointsto Jesus because he met the conditions of the prophecy.

The Jewish scholars who refute Jesus’ fulfillment of these prophecies believe that our faith would crumble if the verses from the OT don’t refer to Christ alone, thinking that the Church bases her teachings solely on such fulfillments. But, she doesn’t. The Church preached Christ born of the Virgin, crucified, and risen from the dead before the NT was written. The OT is the witness to these things, not the proof of them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

According to Jewish scholars who refute Christianity’s claims, none of the prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus, why should this one be any more important than any of the others?

In Hebrew the word “virgin” simply means maiden. It doesn’t signify if the maiden mentioned in the prophecy is a married woman or not. You see, the prophecies of the OT have more than one fulfillment. There is one for the times in which it was made, one that is spiritually understood, and one that was to be fulfilled by the Messiah. Not all prophecies were meant to be fulfilled in all three ways.

St. Matthew used the Greek word for virgin when he cited the prophecy from Isaiah because he saw that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by him being born of the Virgin. Matthew didn’t claim that the prophecy had no other fulfillment because he understood that the OT prophecies often had more than one fulfillment, as I mentioned above.

The Church doesn’t base doctrine on any particular verse(s). Rather, as St. Matthew understood it, the Church understands that these prophecies are a witness to Christ’s fulfillment, not proof of them, as we think of proof–as irrefutable evidence. Rather, the prophecies pointsto Jesus because he met the conditions of the prophecy.

The Jewish scholars who refute Jesus’ fulfillment of these prophecies believe that our faith would crumble if the verses from the OT don’t refer to Christ alone, thinking that the Church bases her teachings solely on such fulfillments. But, she doesn’t. The Church preached Christ born of the Virgin, crucified, and risen from the dead before the NT was written. The OT is the witness to these things, not the proof of them.

I agree with you about the “two fulfillments” concept - though Jews would disagree, of course, in this case. But I still want to know when they believe its fulfillment occurred. When did God give the sign promised to Ahaz?

As for the translation issues, Catholic Answers sez this:

The controversy surrounds the translation of Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” This Old Testament prophecy is quoted in the gospel of Matthew (Mt 1:23) and specifically applied to the virginal conception of Christ.

Christians have always cherished this prophecy of Isaiah and its miraculous fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah. Likewise, non-believers have attacked this prophecy in an attempt to discredit Christ and his Church; the attack is a weak one that is easily refuted.

The Hebrew word translated as virgin, almah, can also be translated as “young woman” but as Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon notes “there is no instance where it can be proved that almah designates a young woman who is not a virgin.”

Additional evidence that the correct translation is “virgin” is supplied by the Septuagint version of the Bible, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made several centuries before Christ. It was translated by Jewish scholars for use by Greek-speaking Jews, mainly in Alexandria.

The Septuagint translates the Hebrew almah into Greek as parthenos. This Greek term has the precise meaning of “virgin.” So several centuries before the birth of Christ, before there was any reason to attack his Church, the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 was clear: almah = parthenos = virgin.

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-bible-prophecy-say-that-the-mother-of-the-messiah-would-be-a-virgin-or-only-

 

[Della]

I agree with you about the “two fulfillments” concept - though Jews would disagree, of course, in this case. But I still want to know when they believe its fulfillment occurred. When did God give the sign promised to Ahaz?

Well, that we simply don’t know, precisely. Nor do we know who the prophecy referred to for Ahaz’s time, sad to say. Scholars have made educated guesses, but we just don’t have that information.

As for the translation issues, Catholic Answers sez this:

The controversy surrounds the translation of Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” This Old Testament prophecy is quoted in the gospel of Matthew (Mt 1:23) and specifically applied to the virginal conception of Christ.

Christians have always cherished this prophecy of Isaiah and its miraculous fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah. Likewise, non-believers have attacked this prophecy in an attempt to discredit Christ and his Church; the attack is a weak one that is easily refuted.

The Hebrew word translated as virgin, almah, can also be translated as “young woman” but as Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon notes “there is no instance where it can be proved that almah designates a young woman who is not a virgin.”

Additional evidence that the correct translation is “virgin” is supplied by the Septuagint version of the Bible, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made several centuries before Christ. It was translated by Jewish scholars for use by Greek-speaking Jews, mainly in Alexandria.

The Septuagint translates the Hebrew almah into Greek as parthenos. This Greek term has the precise meaning of “virgin.” So several centuries before the birth of Christ, before there was any reason to attack his Church, the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 was clear: almah = parthenos = virgin.

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-bible-prophecy-say-that-the-mother-of-the-messiah-would-be-a-virgin-or-only-

You’ll note that the prophecy isn’t said to be proof–because it isn’t proof, but the witness to Christ’s fulfillment. This is an important distinction. One that cannot be overlooked or ignored. Theology doesn’t use the scientific method to determine doctrine/dogma. We moderns want everything laid out nice and neat with no difficulties, but that’s not always possible. We are talking about ancient writings written by men long deceased who were moved by God to write as witnesses to God’s dealings with men. It’s not a matter of discovering precisely who the prophecy described at the time. It no longer matters for us nor is it important. Rather, we know that Jesus was born of the Virgin because the Apostles taught that he was and recorded the fact for us (well actually for those for whom they were writing at the time). So, no matter who questions it, in the end we believe because Christ gave the Apostles the authority to teach the faith in his name, the evidence of the faith being the existence of the Church and the continuing fulfillment of Christ’s promises.

 

[Della]

Additionally, the words: “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.” Tells us that the Prophet meant to have Ahaz ask for something much more important that the birth of a temporal leader. What ordinary leader could fulfill such a request who wasn’t divine, if he was to be one whose presence was to be “the deepest depths or…the highest heights?” Only the God-man, Jesus Christ fulfills the Prophet’s criteria, and no one else.

 

[Autumn_Smoke]

Isaiah 7:10:14
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 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.

According to Jewish scholars, was this prophecy fulfilled?

From what I can make out, they believed the prophecy pertained to Ahaz himself, whose wife would bear a son. So the prophecy was fulfilled in Ahaz’s time.

Here is Rashi’s commentary from this sight chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15938/jewish/Chapter-7.htm#showrashi=true

the young woman: My wife will conceive this year. This was the fourth year of Ahaz.

and she shall call his name: Divine inspiration will rest upon her.

Immanuel: [lit. God is with us. That is] to say that our Rock shall be with us, and this is the sign, for she is a young girl, and she never prophesied, yet in this instance, Divine inspiration shall rest upon her.

There are both Jewish objections to Christian views, as in jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/isaiah-714-a-virgin-birth/

and (very good ) Hebrew Christian apologetics of these views, as in jewishroots.net/library/prophecy/isaiah/isaiah-7-14/common-objections-to-isaiah-7-14.html

 

[psalm90]

Jewish exegetes using the Masoretic text translate the verse as regarding a “young woman” (not a virgin) and The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford Univ Press) poses the fundamental question, how could that ordinary occurrence be a “sign” and leaves the matter at that.

The history of the Septuagint that I’ve read is that the Torah was translated into Greek first, and that work was completed around BC 200. The remainder of the Jewish writings were translated later but completed in the BC era. It is the Septuagint created by Jewish bilingual scholars which rendered the translation as “virgin.” It is the Septuagint that Mt’s gospel is quoting.

For certain, the Second Edition of the same Jewish Study Bible reflects that in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, there were found three variants of the Jewish scriptures. One that could be described as pre-Masoretic (ie a text on which the Masoretic text was based), the Septuagint, and the Torah as understood and accepted by the Samaritans.

The Septuagint becomes, if nothing else, a Hebrew-Greek dictionary which may reflect the Jewish understanding of the Hebrew text. So, that’s how “virgin” arises in the NT. The oldest copy of the Masoretic text dates back only to around AD 900. And, there is some suspicion that it was redacted (ie changed, edited) to favor a Jewish understanding of the scriptures EXCLUDING meanings (and entire texts!) that Judaism saw as important to the emerging Christian movement, but this is only an unprovable hypothesis. There again, the Septuagint is a snapshot of presumably unbiased Jewish thought (unbiased by the challenge of the emerging Christian sect).

(note: the Masoretes were dedicated to preserving the knowledge of ancient Hebrew, which they feared would be lost, so some significant notations were added to aid pronunciation and even meaning [because Hebrew had no vowels]).

The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 was an earthquake to Judaism, and the rabbis had to reinvent Judaism as a “religion of the book” in which prayers took the place of animal sacrifice, for example. Judaism was more firmly oriented to practice in synagogues rather than in a central Temple. The synagogues themselves were thought to have originated among the Jews while in exile. (I haven’t thought about that in a long time, and it strikes me that the synagogue itself represents an exile of its own, exile from a Temple every Jew would rather remedy in the future.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here are a few of the hundreds of prophecies concerning the Messiah that were fulfilled by Jesus (compilation by J. Warner Wallace):

The Messiah Would Come from the Tribe of Judah
Jacob made this prophetic prediction around 1400 BC.

Genesis 49:10
The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

Christians believe Jesus will establish an everlasting kingdom in the future. His ancestry is traced back to Jacob’s son, Judah, in Luke 3:23-34 and in Matthew 1:1-16.

The Messiah Will Appear After the Jews Return to Israel
Jeremiah uttered this prophecy between 626 BC and 586 BC. It was first fulfilled in Jesus’ earthly ministry and will be fulfilled again in the end times.

Jeremiah 23:3-6
‘I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number. I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,’ declares the LORD. ‘The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.”

The Messiah Would Be Born in Bethlehem
The prophet Micah predicted this between 750 BC and 686 BC.

Micah 5:2
‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.’

To be fair, there is disagreement regarding the translation of Micah 5:2. Some say the reference to ‘Bethlehem’ is simply a reference to the bloodline of King David. Other people say it is a reference to the town of Bethlehem. Jesus meets both criteria; He is a descendant of King David and He was born in Bethlehem.

The Messiah Would Be Preceded By a Messenger
Isaiah predicted there would be a messenger who would precede the Messiah and proclaim His coming. Isaiah made the prophecy between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 40:3
A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the LORD ; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.”

Christians believe this passage foreshadowed the life of John the Baptist who played an important role in preparing the groundwork for the ministry of Jesus Christ.

The Messiah Would Enter Jerusalem While Riding on a Donkey
Zechariah made this unusual prediction between 520 BC and 518 BC.

Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

As recorded in Luke 19:35-37, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and presented Himself as the Messiah, the King.

The Messiah Would Suffer and Be Rejected
Isaiah made this prediction as well, between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 53:3
He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Some scholars claim Isaiah was referring to Israel as a nation in this passage rather than the Messiah. But, many important, historic Rabbis believed this passage was indeed about the Messiah. Rabbi Moshe Alshekh, one of the great seventeenth-century expositors from Safed, Israel, said ‘Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.”

The Messiah Would Be Betrayed for 30 Pieces of Silver
Zechariah predicted the betrayal of Jesus when he wrote this prophecy between 520 BC and 518 BC.

Zechariah 11:12-13
I told them, ‘If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.’ So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’–the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

As recorded in Matthew 26:15, Judas was paid 30 silver coins for his betrayal of Jesus. Judas later tossed the money into the Temple (the house of the Lord) and the money was used to buy a potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Messiah Would Be Silent Before His Accusers
Isaiah predicted this between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

In the book of Isaiah, chapter 53, Isaiah wrote about a “servant of God”. As recorded in Matthew 27:12-14, Jesus was falsely accused but remained silent and did not protest the accusations. Jesus was crucified by the Romans a short time later.

The Messiah Would Be Wounded, Whipped and Crucified
This sad truth about the Messiah was prophesied by Isaiah between 701 BC and 681 BC.

Isaiah 53:5
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Jesus was crucified for our sins, even though He was sinless. This ultimate sacrifice redeemed us all from sin in the same way lambs were once sacrificed as a symbol. As a result, all of us can be accepted into the Kingdom of God as though we were sinless, if we accept Jesus as our Savior.

The Messiah Would Suffer at the Crucifixion
The Psalmist, King David wrote Psalm 22 and repeatedly predicted the events on the cross that would happen centuries later. Here are a few examples:

Psalm 22:1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?

Psalm 22:7
All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

Psalm 22:8
‘He trusts in the LORD ; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.’

Psalm 22:16
Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

Psalm 22:17
I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.

Psalm 22:18
They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Why did Jesus, while dying on the cross, say ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ Those words are actually the first line of Psalm 22, which according to Jewish tradition was written by King David about 1,000 years before Jesus was crucified. There are many parallels between the details in Psalm 22 and the manner in which Jesus died.

The Messiah Would Be Crucified With Criminals
Isaiah also proclaimed this prophecy between 701 BC and 681 BC regarding the specific circumstances of the crucifixion of the Messiah.

Isaiah 53:12
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

As recorded in the book of Matthew, Jesus, though sinless, was “numbered with the transgressors” and crucified beside two criminals.

The Messiah Would Be Buried in a Rich Man’s Tomb
In yet another prophecy of Isaiah, made between 701 BC and 681 BC, the prophet predicted the burial of the Messiah.

Isaiah 53:9
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Seven hundred years after this was written, Jesus was killed with two criminals and buried in a tomb owned by a wealthy man. Jesus was resurrected three days later and eventually ascended into Heaven.

 

[Qoeleth]

Isaiah 7:10:14
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 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.

According to Jewish scholars, was this prophecy fulfilled?

Well- I suppose if they recognised it as being fulfilled they would be Christian scholars, instead of Jewish scholars!!!

But seriously, there were those who, even seeing Christ Himself in the flesh, called for His execution. See John 8:45. “Ego autem si veritatem dico, non creditis mihi.” And John 8:44 says why…