Help with Isaiah 7:14

[johnsteinson]

I honestly do not understand the relationship between Isaiah 7:14 and the birth of Jesus. What I understand from reading Isaiah 7:14 is that God is telling the king of Judea that they will be safe from their enemies from the north. The sign will be a birth of a child and before this child knows the difference between good and evil, the 2 threatening nations will be destroyed. This occurred about 700 years before the birth of Jesus. Of what use would it be for God to tell King Ahaz about a child’s birth 700 years later? I would like to know how other people understand Isaiah 7:14.

 

[dmar198]

I honestly do not understand the relationship between Isaiah 7:14 and the birth of Jesus. What I understand from reading Isaiah 7:14 is that God is telling the king of Judea that they will be safe from their enemies from the north. The sign will be a birth of a child and before this child knows the difference between good and evil, the 2 threatening nations will be destroyed. This occurred about 700 years before the birth of Jesus. Of what use would it be for God to tell King Ahaz about a child’s birth 700 years later? I would like to know how other people understand Isaiah 7:14.

The sign is not just for King Ahaz, it’s also for the “house of David” (verse 13), and the sign includes a virgin having a child and naming Him a divine title. The word for “virgin” refers to someone who has not had sex yet. The virgin and the child are both central to the sign – I don’t think there are any other candidates for these two but Jesus and Mary.

 

[johnsteinson]

The sign is not just for King Ahaz, it’s also for the “house of David” (verse 13), and the sign includes a virgin having a child and naming Him a divine title. The word for “virgin” refers to someone who has not had sex yet. The virgin and the child are both central to the sign – I don’t think there are any other candidates for these two but Jesus and Mary.

To paraphrase:
Isaiah 11: God says ask for a sign.
12: Ahaz says no.
13: God refers to Ahaz as the “House of David.” God is letting Ahaz know he is being a pain.
14: God says he’s getting a sign anyway. The sign being a child etc.
Am I to understand that God told Ahaz that a virgin will have a child within 2 years, at which point his enemies would be destroyed?
But more importantly, why would God tell Ahaz about something that will occur 700 years into the future? I would imagine he has enough problems worrying about the present. It seems to me that God referring to Ahaz as “House of David” does not by itself indicate God was speaking any further than 2 years or less into the future.

What I’m looking for is a logical flow from the OT to the NT. Hope I am saying this next item right…I’m not looking for evidence in the OT to SHOW that Jesus is who He says He is. I’m looking for what the OT says about the coming of the final, the one and only Messiah. If Jesus is the correct answer, then there we go. If not…then there we go.

 

[Todd977]

Like most Old Testament prophecies, this prophecy seems to have both an immediate, primary fulfillment and a more distant, secondary, Messianic fulfillment.

 

[johnsteinson]

Like most Old Testament prophecies, this prophecy seems to have both an immediate, primary fulfillment and a more distant, secondary, Messianic fulfillment.

I don’t see where this prophecy extends more than 2 years or so. Where do you see it going any further than 2 years or so?

 

[Cathoholic]

ISAIAH 7:14 (DRV) 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.

Johnsteinson.

You said:

QUOTE:
I don’t see where this prophecy extends more than 2 years or so.

There is an immediate partial realization of this prophecy and a later more complete fulfillment.

You are correctly seeing the immediate partial implementation, but unfortunately you are missing the later fulfillment.

You said (bold mine):

QUOTE:
I don’t see where this prophecy extends more than 2 years or so. Where do you see it going any further than 2 years or so?

From the Holy Spirit through St. Matthew . . . .

MATTHEW 1:22-23 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

. . . . . and from the early Church Fathers . . . . .

Commenting on Isaiah 7, St. Basil states . . .

ST. BASIL THE GREAT . . . . Isaiah says that he has seen no God but Him. For he did actually see the glory of God, the mystery of Whose taking flesh from the Virgin he foretold. And if you, . . . do not know that it was God the Only-begotten Whom the prophet saw in that glory, listen to the Evangelist. . . . . The Apostle, the Evangelist, the Prophet combine to silence your objections. . . .

—St. Basil the Great On The Trinity Book V​

I hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[johnsteinson]

ISAIAH 7:14 (DRV) 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.
Johnsteinson.
You said:
QUOTE:
I don’t see where this prophecy extends more than 2 years or so.
There is an immediate partial realization of this prophecy and a later more complete fulfillment.
You are correctly seeing the immediate partial implementation, but unfortunately you are missing the later fulfillment.
You said (bold mine):
QUOTE:
I don’t see where this prophecy extends more than 2 years or so. Where do you see it going any further than 2 years or so?
From the Holy Spirit through St. Matthew . . . .
MATTHEW 1:22-23 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).
. . . . . and from the early Church Fathers . . . . .
Commenting on Isaiah 7, St. Basil states . . .
ST. BASIL THE GREAT . . . . Isaiah says that he has seen no God but Him. For he did actually see the glory of God, the mystery of Whose taking flesh from the Virgin he foretold. And if you, . . . do not know that it was God the Only-begotten Whom the prophet saw in that glory, listen to the Evangelist. . . . . The Apostle, the Evangelist, the Prophet combine to silence your objections. . . .

—St. Basil the Great On The Trinity Book V​

I hope this helps.
God bless.
Cathoholic

So what you are saying is that God told King Ahaz that a child will be born of a virgin and that will show that the nations bent on invading Judah will be destroyed? This begs the question, how many virgin births are there in the Bible? And wouldn’t this be an odd place to announce the birth of Jesus? I see no reason to believe that a virgin birth was involved in King Ahaz’s future. My copy of Isaiah doesn’t even have the word “virgin” contained in it.
It seems quite evident that we cannot get from the OT to Jesus without first making a stop to the NT. The words of Isaiah speak for themselves. We would necessarily need someone from the NT to tell us what Isaiah really meant because the connection cannot be discovered from Isaiah alone. We do have Matthew telling us something, but that something is not in Isaiah 7-14.

 

[Todd977]

I don’t see where this prophecy extends more than 2 years or so. Where do you see it going any further than 2 years or so?

All aspects of Isaiah’s prophecy refer to the primary, immediate fulfillment. Only some aspects of the prophecy refer to the secondary, remote, Messianic fulfillment. This is the case with nearly all of the passages of the Old Testament that Christians consider Messianic prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. It is unlikely that anyone on their own would be able to recognize the Messianic aspects in this and other such prophecies until after Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

 

[johnsteinson]

All aspects of Isaiah’s prophecy refer to the primary, immediate fulfillment. Only some aspects of the prophecy refer to the secondary, remote, Messianic fulfillment. This is the case with nearly all of the passages of the Old Testament that Christians consider Messianic prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. It is unlikely that anyone on their own would be able to recognize the Messianic aspects in this and other such prophecies until after Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

How hard can it be to recognize when the prophecies have been completed? I can look out my window and see that it hasn’t happened yet.
There are all kinds of prophecies waiting to be fulfilled which has not happened yet.
**When the Messiah is reigning as King of Israel, the Jews will be ingathered from their exile and will return to Israel, their homeland Deut. 30:3; Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 30:3, 32:37; Ezekiel 11:17, 36:24
**The Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt (Isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20; Ezekiel 37:26–27; Malachi 3:4; Zech. 14:20-21).
**There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war (Micah 4:1-4; Hosea 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).
**Observance of the Torah Embraced by All Jews (Ezekiel 37:24; Deut. 30:8,10; Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27).
**The Messiah will rule at a time when all the people of the world will come to acknowledge and serve the one true God (Zechariah 3:9, 8:23,14:9,16; Isaiah 45:23, 66:23; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 38:23; Psalm 86:9; Zeph. 3:9).

Not one has been fulfilled. And nowhere in the OT can I find that the Messiah will come back a 2nd time to get the job done. The only way to conclude that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the coming of Jesus you would already have to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and then squeeze Him in there somehow.

 

[Almagor]

I honestly do not understand the relationship between Isaiah 7:14 and the birth of Jesus. What I understand from reading Isaiah 7:14 is that God is telling the king of Judea that they will be safe from their enemies from the north. The sign will be a birth of a child and before this child knows the difference between good and evil, the 2 threatening nations will be destroyed. This occurred about 700 years before the birth of Jesus. Of what use would it be for God to tell King Ahaz about a child’s birth 700 years later? I would like to know how other people understand Isaiah 7:14.

I agree with dmar198 that the words saying a “virgin would give birth” only happened one time in History and that was when Our Mother Mary gave birth to Jesus. Why would Isaiah write about something 700 years in the future? You have to remember what St. Paul said “that no prophet wrote anything according to his own private interpretation but was inspired by God to say word for word what God wanted the Prophet to Say.” The question is not why Isaiah wrote those words 700 years before Jesus, but rather, why did God inspire Isaiah to write those words 700 years before Jesus? One reason is that God knew that you, I, and many others would read them 2700 years after they were written and get a glimpse of the awesomeness of God. Also so that we would come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I know you already believe that but many don’t.

Another example of God inspiring Isaiah to prophesy far into the future is that in Chapter 53: 2 through 12 Isaiah gave awesome prophecies about many things that Jesus would do, including, " He was wounded for our transgressions and He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and by His stripes (wounds from a whip look like stripes), we are healed.

Another reason why God inspired Isaiah to give prophesies about Jesus 700 years ahead of time is so that when Jesus first announced that He was the Messiah sent by God He read in the Synagog, Isaiah 61: 1 through 3, “The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, He has anointed me to preach good tidings ********** etc. and then Jesus said, " today, this prophesy is fulfilled in your midst.”

I hope I have been at least a little helpful. I aqm blessed to read something from you who are obviously sincerely wanted to understand God’s Word the Holy Bible. God bless you.

 

[johnsteinson]

I agree with dmar198 that the words saying a “virgin would give birth” only happened one time in History and that was when Our Mother Mary gave birth to Jesus.

You wrote a lot of interesting things. But let’s do this 1 step at a time.
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (New American Standard Bible)

Let’s say I accept this as truth, that is, I accept that the word “virgin” had been put there because God wanted it there. That would mean that Isaiah 7:14 and it’s surrounding verses are telling us that the sign God is giving to King Ahaz is that a virgin woman will give birth to a son and that by the time this child knows right from wrong, Ahaz’s enemies will be destroyed.

This leads to a problem that needs to be solved. You said there was only 1 case of a virgin birth, and that would be Jesus and Mary. But we see in Isaiah 7:14 that there is a virgin mother being used by God as a sign for King Ahaz. This virgin cannot be Mary because this is almost 700 years too early. So it has to be a different virgin. If so, that would mean there are at least 2 virgin births to be found in the Bible, not 1 as you have stated at the top of this post.

How do you reconcile this situation?

 

[Cathoholic]

Johnsteinson.

You said:

QUOTE:
How hard can it be to recognize when the prophecies have been completed? I can look out my window and see that it hasn’t happened yet.
There are all kinds of prophecies waiting to be fulfilled which has not happened yet.
**When the Messiah is reigning as King of Israel, the Jews will be ingathered from their exile and will return to Israel, their homeland Deut. 30:3; Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 30:3, 32:37; Ezekiel 11:17, 36:24
**The Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt (Isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20; Ezekiel 37:26–27; Malachi 3:4; Zech. 14:20-21).
**There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war (Micah 4:1-4; Hosea 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).
**Observance of the Torah Embraced by All Jews (Ezekiel 37:24; Deut. 30:8,10; Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27).
**The Messiah will rule at a time when all the people of the world will come to acknowledge and serve the one true God (Zechariah 3:9, 8:23,14:9,16; Isaiah 45:23, 66:23; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 38:23; Psalm 86:9; Zeph. 3:9).

These have been fulfilled Johnsteinson (there will be an eschatological dimension which is yet to come too).

If you saw Catholics as fulfilled Jews, you will begin to see this easier. The answer to your issue can be aided by reading the CCC 115-119.

If you want to begin other threads on the individual prophecies you mentioned above, I will be happy to go into more details . . . but not here.

You also said:

QUOTE:
So what you are saying is that God told King Ahaz that a child will be born of a virgin and that will show that the nations bent on invading Judah will be destroyed?

No. That is NOT what I am saying.

What I am saying is that there are layers of meaning to Isaiah 7:14, which is why the word “almah” (alma) was used for young woman/virgin. This can/does have duel meaning.

This begs the question, how many virgin births are there in the Bible?

One Virgin Birth in the Bible.

QUOTE:
My copy of Isaiah doesn’t even have the word “virgin” contained in it.

That’s OK. What version are you using?

We would necessarily need someone from the NT to tell us what Isaiah really meant because the connection cannot be discovered from Isaiah alone.

The prophecy of the virgin birth can be discovered from Isaiah alone.

But we don’t need it to be discovered from Isaiah alone. We can use St. Matthew’s Gospel (as I have shown), we can also use the ancient Church Fathers (as I also have shown), or if you’d like, we can use the authority of the Church.

Incidentally Johnsteinson. You also said:

QUOTE:
The sign will be a birth of a child and before this child knows the difference between good and evil, the 2 threatening nations will be destroyed.

What child do you think this was referring to in Isaiah 7:14?

You said (bold mine):

What I understand from reading Isaiah 7:14 is that God is telling the king of Judea that they will be safe from their enemies from the north. The sign will be a birth of a child and before **this child . . . **

 

[ericc]

I honestly do not understand the relationship between Isaiah 7:14 and the birth of Jesus. What I understand from reading Isaiah 7:14 is that God is telling the king of Judea that they will be safe from their enemies from the north. The sign will be a birth of a child and before this child knows the difference between good and evil, the 2 threatening nations will be destroyed. This occurred about 700 years before the birth of Jesus. Of what use would it be for God to tell King Ahaz about a child’s birth 700 years later? I would like to know how other people understand Isaiah 7:14.

I was confused as to who did the talking. In Isaiah 7:3- 9, God asked Isaiah to tell Ahaz not to worry about his enemies. That was said and done. Case closed.

However, in Is 7:10 it appears that the Lord spoke to Ahaz (directly? or thru Isaiah?). It reads to me the Lord ask Ahaz to ask of HIM anything he wants to know (verse 11) but Ahaz politely declined (verse 12). But the Lord went ahead anyway and told him some future stuff. The birth of Jesus is just one of many things God told him.

My take is that the worries Ahaz is facing is a separate matter from the prophecies It is like “since we are talking, by the way, these things are going to happen eventually”

 

[Cyberseeker]

Like most Old Testament prophecies, this prophecy seems to have both an immediate, primary fulfillment and a more distant, secondary, Messianic fulfillment.

This is how I see it too except that your word ‘primary’ is moot. I would suggest that its Messianic fulfillment was the primary one.

I have heard people describe this as ‘dual’ fulfillment but others object, “how many times can a prophecy repeat itself?” The answer seems to be that the near fulfillment satisfies the basic requirement of the prophecy but its ultimate purpose awaits completion at a later date.

I would like to see a thread on other OT examples of this phenomenon.

 

[johnsteinson]

Deleted unfulfilled prophecies till a later date
As a side note, I like the name Cathoholic. Wish I had thought of it.

I asked:
So what you are saying is that God told King Ahaz that a child will be born of a virgin and that will show that the nations bent on invading Judah will be destroyed?

Cathoholic replied
No. That is NOT what I am saying.
What I am saying is that there are layers of meaning to Isaiah 7:14, which is why the word “almah” (alma) was used for young woman/virgin. This can/does have duel meaning.
One Virgin Birth in the Bible.

My response:
But that is what Isaiah 7:1-25 tells us. If you are NOT saying this, then you are at odds with Isaiah, not me. King Ahaz was told that a sign will be a woman giving birth. Your version says virgin woman. Ok…so a virgin woman is giving birth to a child.
The entire Isaiah 7 deals with the war between 10 northern tribes (and Syria) and the southern 2 tribes. Was this prophecy fulfilled? Yes. We can look at 2 KINGS 15:29-30 and 2 KINGS 16:7-9 to see that it was fulfilled.

If you look at Matthew 1:18-25, you can see that he took the part in Isaiah 7:14, took it out of context, and forced it into his narrative. Without Matthew doing this, there would be no way to come to the conclusion that this part of Isaiah was speaking of Jesus.

But wait…there is a bigger problem. You have stated “One Virgin Birth in the Bible.” If you wish to argue that a virgin woman was involved in Isaiah 7, you are left with 2 virgin births stories in the Bible.
1: A virgin birth during the lifetime of King Ahaz.
2. The virgin birth of Jesus 700 years after the lifetime of King Ahaz.

I said
My copy of Isaiah doesn’t even have the word “virgin” contained in it.

Cathoholic replied
That’s OK. What version are you using?

My response:
JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh-which (of course) does not use the word virgin.
The New American Bible Revised Edition-which does not use the word virgin.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha-which does not use the word virgin

Cathoholic said:
The prophecy of the virgin birth can be discovered from Isaiah alone.

My response:
No. As I’ve demonstrated above, Isaiah alone only tells you about the civil war. It was Matthew that tried to make the connection.

Cathoholic said:
But we don’t need it to be discovered from Isaiah alone. We can use St. Matthew’s Gospel (as I have shown), we can also use the ancient Church Fathers (as I also have shown), or if you’d like, we can use the authority of the Church.

My response:
Matthew took the text out of context to try to prove his point about Jesus.
The ancient Church fathers. Outside of the Moslems, I don’t know a bigger group of people who so despised, hated the Jews. Read the Eight Homilies Against the Jews by John Chrysostom and you will see I am correct.
I was an atheist until my early 50s. I found God and immediately became a Catholic. I’ve been studying the OT for sometime now. The authority of the Church is only as strong as the NT it sits upon.
I have my opinion. You have your opinion. What i want to know is, what is God’s opinion. What does God say about this, that and the other thing? The more I compare and contrast the NT with the OT, the less confidence I have with the NT.

Meanwhile, Cathoholic brings up…
Incidentally Johnsteinson. You also said:

QUOTE:
The sign will be a birth of a child and before this child knows the difference between good and evil, the 2 threatening nations will be destroyed.

What child do you think this was referring to in Isaiah 7:14?

My response:
Isaiah was referring to a (unknown to us) child to be born within the King’s lifetime. It would be of no use to the King for Isaiah 7 to bring up a child to be born 700 years into the future.

 

[Todd977]

How hard can it be to recognize when the prophecies have been completed? I can look out my window and see that it hasn’t happened yet.
There are all kinds of prophecies waiting to be fulfilled which has not happened yet.
…
Not one has been fulfilled. And nowhere in the OT can I find that the Messiah will come back a 2nd time to get the job done. The only way to conclude that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the coming of Jesus you would already have to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and then squeeze Him in there somehow.

I agree with you. There are many Old Testament prophecies that are clearly Messianic and are yet to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ. My earlier response was only about those Old Testament passages which Christians regard as “Messianic” prophecies that have already been fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yes, the Christian interpretation of many such Old Testament passages seems forced; it is unlikely that anyone unfamiliar with Jesus Christ would regard such passages as Messianic prophecies. If such Old Testament passages were understood as being Messianic prior to Jesus Christ’s coming, then, I suppose, the Jews would have all become Christians two thousand years ago.

 

[johnsteinson]

I agree with you. There are many Old Testament prophecies that are clearly Messianic and are yet to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ. My earlier response was only about those Old Testament passages which Christians regard as “Messianic” prophecies that have already been fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yes, the Christian interpretation of many such Old Testament passages seems forced; it is unlikely that anyone unfamiliar with Jesus Christ would regard such passages as Messianic prophecies. If such Old Testament passages were understood as being Messianic prior to Jesus Christ’s coming, then, I suppose, the Jews would have all become Christians two thousand years ago.

I can find nothing in the OT that leads to Jesus.
Can you give me 1 prophecy that has been fulfilled by Jesus? No matter how big or small the prophecy, give me 1. Just 1 is all I ask for.

 

[Cathoholic]

Johnsteinson. You said:

My response:
But that is what Isaiah 7:1-25 tells us. If you are NOT saying this, then you are at odds with Isaiah, not me.

If you are so sure of that, why do you think, “Isaiah was referring to a child to be born within the King’s lifetime” . . . who was “UNKNOWN to us”?

Don’t you think if this was so great a sign as to be “high as the heavens” and “deep as sheol”, that the kid OUGHT to at least be KNOWN?

Incidentally I am not denying your interpretation (of what you affirm, at least most of it). But I DO take issue with what you DENY.

You are going to look at the above question I posed and say “Well Cathoholic. You’ve got the same problem. After all, if you affirm any sort of immediate fulfillment YOU don’t know who this kid is either.”

But I don’t have the same problem. Why? Because the immediate fulfillment aspect was only a layer of the prophecy. The final ultimate fulfillment is going to be made evident by God—and it was made evident.

You also opined . . .

It would be of no use to the King for Isaiah 7 to bring up a child to be born 700 years into the future.

The prophecy isn’t just for “the king”.

And it would be useful for the people. The rabbinic Jews today have LOTS of long-term prophetic expectations. “Next year in Jerusalem” is one of many. Yet there has been no Temple building not just for 700 years but almost 2000 years. Yet the rabbinic Jews don’t say:

Rabbinic Jewish person: “Next year in Jerusalem.”

Second rabbinic Jewish person: “Hey! Wait a minute! We’ve been waiting a lot longer than 700 years for the Temple building rebuild, and Johnsteinson says prophetic oracles that take over 700 years are of no use!”

No. That would be non-sense. As a matter of fact, all the prophecies you brought up in post 9, rabbinic Jewish people still look to. THEY don’t say anything like: “It would be of no use . . . for a prophetic oracle to be fulfilled . . . 700 years into the future”.

Cathoholic said:
The prophecy of the virgin birth can be discovered from Isaiah alone.

My response:
No. As I’ve demonstrated above, Isaiah alone only tells you about the civil war. It was Matthew that tried to make the connection.

And: . . .

. . . . “Isaiah . . . only tells you about the civil war”.

You haven’t demonstrated anything Johnsteinson.

This is mere ipse dixit. “It is this way, because I say it is this way.”

I showed you Isaiah 7:14. I explained WHY it has dual meaning (or at least CAN have dual meaning) because of the Hebrew word “almah” used there.

I showed you what the ancient Jewish person—St. Matthew—thought of Isaiah 7:14 and how, inspired by the Holy Spirit, interpreted Isaiah 7:14 for us too.

I told you the ancient Church Fathers saw this as well citing St. Basil the Great.

Instead of dealing with the issue, you tried to get me off on a tangent on St. John Chrysostom, ignoring the St. Basil quote (prejudicially painting the ancient Church Fathers as haters—“The ancient Church fathers . . . hated the Jews.”).

When I was growing up and other people in the neighborhood tried to say “blacks are criminals” or “Jews are filled with avarice” or “Irishman are drunks” or some such thing based upon the weaknesses of some, my parents would point out these types of remarks as being prejudiced and bigoted statements.

When I hear you say: “The ancient Church fathers . . . hated the Jews.” . . .

. . . .I want you to know I see this as an inappropriate comment, a falsehood, and a painting with too broad a brush to be taken seriously.

I won’t address this type of shenanigans of yours (“The ancient Church fathers . . . hated the Jews.” or any thing resembling it) anymore on this thread. I am happy to engage you in your arguments here on Isaiah 7:14.

And I am saying so far none of your arguments have been persuasive Johnsteinson. Not one of them. You are just denying the verses.

And this . . . .

I can find nothing in the OT that leads to Jesus.

I am not going to address this on this thread specifically either. But I can find many (“OT that leads to Jesus”) though.

St. Paul who studied under the feet of the universally revered rabbi Gamaliel could see it too (with grace).

But it takes grace to see these multiple layers of prophecy Johnsteinson.

All the original fulfilled Jews (Catholics) came from Temple Judaism. THEY saw things in the Old Testament that “leads to Jesus”. I see many things in the Old Testament that “leads to Jesus” too. You evidently don’t.

I don’t know if this denial of yours is voluntary or involuntary but it is denial.

CCC 2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

Just because you seem to be unable to see these truths (for whatever reason), does not make your assessments authentic.

If I were to deny these truths, a spiritual blindness or a proverbial veil would come upon my heart. But I CAN see these truths so I must affirm them here and elsewhere.

Isaiah 7:14, in its ultimate sense, is referring to Jesus the Messiah, True God and True man, and His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary is the “almah” who conceives and bears this Son who is to be called “God with us”.

 

[johnsteinson]

I said earlier…
But wait…there is a bigger problem. You have stated “One Virgin Birth in the Bible.” If you wish to argue that a virgin woman was involved in Isaiah 7, you are left with 2 virgin births stories in the Bible.
1: A virgin birth during the lifetime of King Ahaz.
2. The virgin birth of Jesus 700 years after the lifetime of King Ahaz.

I see you totally skipped this. Why?

Johnsteinson. You said:
If you are so sure of that, why do you think, “Isaiah was referring to a child to be born within the King’s lifetime” . . . who was “UNKNOWN to us”?

Don’t you think if this was so great a sign as to be “high as the heavens” and “deep as sheol”, that the kid OUGHT to at least be KNOWN?

Incidentally I am not denying your interpretation (of what you affirm, at least most of it). But I DO take issue with what you DENY.

You are going to look at the above question I posed and say “Well Cathoholic. You’ve got the same problem. After all, if you affirm any sort of immediate fulfillment YOU don’t know who this kid is either.”

But I don’t have the same problem. Why? Because the immediate fulfillment aspect was only a layer of the prophecy. The final ultimate fulfillment is going to be made evident by God—and it was made evident.

You also opined . . .

The prophecy isn’t just for “the king”.

And it would be useful for the people. The rabbinic Jews today have LOTS of long-term prophetic expectations. “Next year in Jerusalem” is one of many. Yet there has been no Temple building not just for 700 years but almost 2000 years. Yet the rabbinic Jews don’t say:

Rabbinic Jewish person: “Next year in Jerusalem.”

Second rabbinic Jewish person: “Hey! Wait a minute! We’ve been waiting a lot longer than 700 years for the Temple building rebuild, and Johnsteinson says prophetic oracles that take over 700 years are of no use!”

No. That would be non-sense. As a matter of fact, all the prophecies you brought up in post 9, rabbinic Jewish people still look to. THEY don’t say anything like: “It would be of no use . . . for a prophetic oracle to be fulfilled . . . 700 years into the future”.

You haven’t demonstrated anything Johnsteinson.

This is mere ipse dixit. “It is this way, because I say it is this way.”

I showed you Isaiah 7:14. I explained WHY it has dual meaning (or at least CAN have dual meaning) because of the Hebrew word “almah” used there.

I showed you what the ancient Jewish person—St. Matthew—thought of Isaiah 7:14 and how, inspired by the Holy Spirit, interpreted Isaiah 7:14 for us too.

I told you the ancient Church Fathers saw this as well citing St. Basil the Great.

Instead of dealing with the issue, you tried to get me off on a tangent on St. John Chrysostom, ignoring the St. Basil quote (prejudicially painting the ancient Church Fathers as haters—“The ancient Church fathers . . . hated the Jews.”).

When I was growing up and other people in the neighborhood tried to say “blacks are criminals” or “Jews are filled with avarice” or “Irishman are drunks” or some such thing based upon the weaknesses of some, my parents would point out these types of remarks as being prejudiced and bigoted statements.

When I hear you say: “The ancient Church fathers . . . hated the Jews.” . . .

. . . .I want you to know I see this as an inappropriate comment, a falsehood, and a painting with too broad a brush to be taken seriously.

I won’t address this type of shenanigans of yours (“The ancient Church fathers . . . hated the Jews.” or any thing resembling it) anymore on this thread. I am happy to engage you in your arguments here on Isaiah 7:14.

And I am saying so far none of your arguments have been persuasive Johnsteinson. Not one of them. You are just denying the verses.

And this . . . .

I am not going to address this on this thread specifically either. But I can find many (“OT that leads to Jesus”) though.

St. Paul who studied under the feet of the universally revered rabbi Gamaliel could see it too (with grace).

But it takes grace to see these multiple layers of prophecy Johnsteinson.

All the original fulfilled Jews (Catholics) came from Temple Judaism. THEY saw things in the Old Testament that “leads to Jesus”. I see many things in the Old Testament that “leads to Jesus” too. You evidently don’t.

I don’t know if this denial of yours is voluntary or involuntary but it is denial.

CCC 2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

Just because you seem to be unable to see these truths (for whatever reason), does not make your assessments authentic.

If I were to deny these truths, a spiritual blindness or a proverbial veil would come upon my heart. But I CAN see these truths so I must affirm them here and elsewhere.

Isaiah 7:14, in its ultimate sense, is referring to Jesus the Messiah, True God and True man, and His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary is the “almah” who conceives and bears this Son who is to be called “God with us”.

 

[Cathoholic]

Johnsteinson. You said:

I said earlier…

But wait…there is a bigger problem. You have stated “One Virgin Birth in the Bible.” If you wish to argue that a virgin woman was involved in Isaiah 7, you are left with 2 virgin births stories in the Bible.

1: A virgin birth during the lifetime of King Ahaz.
2. The virgin birth of Jesus 700 years after the lifetime of King Ahaz.

But I am not arguing that “a virgin” is concerning Isaiah 7 in an immediate sense.

I am arguing that “a virgin woman” concerning Isaiah 7 is in an ultimate and fulfilled sense.

And that is WHY it is easy for me to affirm both senses are true. That’s WHY I have pointed out the “almah” aspect in my prior posts Johnsteinson.

ONE and only ONE Virgin Birth in Scripture Johnsteinson.

Natural & Immediate Sense
Isaiah 7:14 has an immediate and natural aspect to it where merely a “young woman” gives birth to a child. Sacred Scripture does not even tell us who this immediate “young woman” or “son” is. No virgin birth immediately.

Supernatural & Ultimate Fulfilled Sense
Isaiah 7:14 also has a supernatural aspect or layer or sense to it. This is WHY I suggested reading the CCC 115-119. So you can see how the Church frequently sees multiple senses to a given Scripture passage.

So as I was saying, Isaiah 7:14 also has a supernatural aspect or layer or sense to it. This fulfilled sense DOES have the Virgin Birth associated with it . . . . but it is not immediate. THIS larger ultimate fulfillment uses “almah” in the sense of “virgin” and that is WHY St. Matthew can correctly say:

MATTHEW 1:22-23 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

I see you totally skipped this. Why?

Because I already answered it (I didn’t skip it). But here it is again (expounded) . . . .

Here is the verse again (with “almah” parenthetically added) this time with other translations.

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

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

ISAIAH 7:14 (JPS) Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman (almah) is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

The “young woman” sense is the immediate sense. No Virgin Birth immediately.
The “virgin” sense is the ultimate fulfillment sense. Virgin Birth.

I see and affirm both senses here.

You do not.

The Church that Jesus founded and intimately remains with, also sees Jesus’ Birth as the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah.

CCC 497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148 “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."150

Footnote 150 in CCC 497 alludes to Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. CCC 497 bold mine.

You do not see or affirm this more complete understanding of Isaiah 7:14.

I’ll keep you in my prayers Johnsteinson so you can see and believe more, much more. I see fulfilled Judaism right now as a wonderful gift from God. I see fulfilled Judaism as Catholicism.

God bless.

Cathoholic